U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Status Assessment and

Conservation Plan for the

Western Burrowing Owl

in the United States

Biological Technical Publication

BTP-R6001-2003

© Michael Forsberg

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Status Assessment and

Conservation Plan for the

Western Burrowing Owl

in the United States

Biological Technical Publication

BTP-R6001-2003

David S. Klute1,7

Loren W. Ayers2,8

Michael T. Green3

William H. Howe4

Stephanie L. Jones1

Jill A. Shaffer5

Steven R. Sheffield6,9

Tara S. Zimmerman3

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Nongame Migratory Bird Program,

Denver, CO

2 Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Wyoming,

Laramie, WY

3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Nongame Migratory Bird Program,

Portland, OR

4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Nongame Migratory Bird Program,

Albuquerque, NM

5 U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center,

Jamestown, ND

6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management,

Arlington, VA

7 Current Address: Colorado Division of Natural Resources

8 Current Address: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

9 Current Address: George Mason University
Author contact information:

David S. Klute, (Current address) Colorado Division

of Wildlife, 6060 Broadway, Denver, CO 80216.

Phone: (303) 291-7320, Fax: (303) 291-7456, 

e-mail: David.Klute@state.co.us.

Loren W. Ayers, (Current address) Bureau of

Integrated Science Services, Wisconsin Department

of Natural Resources, 101 S. Webster St., Madison,

WI 53707-7921. Phone: (608) 261-6449, Fax: (608)

266-5226, e-mail: ayersl@mail01.dnr.state.wi.us.

Michael T. Green, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Region 1, Nongame Migratory Bird Program, 

911 Northeast 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232.

Phone: (503) 231-6164, Fax: (503) 231-6164, 

e-mail: Michael_Green@fws.gov.

William H. Howe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Region 2, Nongame Migratory Bird Program, 

P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103. 

Phone: (505) 248-6875, Fax: (505) 248-6674, 

e-mail: Bill_Howe@fws.gov.

Stephanie L. Jones, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Region 6, Nongame Migratory Bird Program, 

P.O. Box 25486 DFC, Denver, CO 80225-0486. 

Phone: (303) 236-4409, Fax: (303) 236-8680, 

e-mail: Stephanie_Jones@fws.gov.

Jill A. Shaffer, U.S. Geological Survey, Northern

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, 8711 37th St. SE,

Jamestown, ND 58401. Phone: (701) 253-5547, 

Fax: (701) 253-5553, e-mail: jshaffer@usgs.gov.

Steven R. Sheffield, (Current address) Department

of Biology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

22030, e-mail: srsheffield@att.net.

Tara S. Zimmerman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Region 1, Nongame Migratory Bird Program, 

911 Northeast 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232.

Phone: (503) 231-6164, Fax: (503) 231-6164, 

e-mail: Tara_Zimmerman@fws.gov.

For additional copies or information, contact:

Nongame Migratory Bird Program

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 25486 DFC

Denver, CO 80225-0486

Recommended citation:

Klute, D. S., L. W. Ayers, M. T. Green, W. H. Howe,

S. L. Jones, J. A. Shaffer, S. R. Sheffield, and T. S.

Zimmerman. 2003. Status Assessment and

Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl

in the United States. U.S. Department of Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical

Publication FWS/BTP-R6001-2003, Washington,

D.C.

ii Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Legal Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Breeding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Winter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Natural History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Phenology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Diet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Foraging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Territory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Aggregations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Mortality and Predation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Site and Burrow Fidelity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Winter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Population Estimates and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Breeding Bird Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Christmas Bird Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Other Surveys, United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Other Surveys, Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Other Surveys, Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Densities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Changes in Breeding Season Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Re-occupancy Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

iii

Table of Contents
Monitoring Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Range-wide Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Local Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Proposed Protocols and Surveys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Habitat: Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Burrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Burning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Mowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Habitat: Winter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Overutilization For Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Predation and Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Predation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Other Natural or Manmade Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Disturbance at Nest and Roost Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Ingestion of Plastics, Lead, Etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Collisions with Stationary/Moving Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Shooting, Trapping, and Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Population Size and Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Introduced Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Indirect Effects of Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Pesticides and Other Contaminants/Toxics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Recommendation on Current Conservation Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Management and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Habitat Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Mowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Burrowing Mammals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Reintroduction and Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Reintroduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Relocations and Artificial Burrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Pesticide Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Wintering Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Current Activities and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Research Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

iv Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Appendix A: State Summaries of Burrowing Owl Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

South Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Appendix B: Summary of Conservation Recommendations for Burrowing Owls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Appendix C: Distribution List for the Burrowing Owl Status Assessment and Conservation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Appendix D: Scientific and Common Names of Animals and Plants Mentioned 

in the Burrowing Owl Status Assessment and Conservation Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Table of Contents v
Fig. 1. Current and historical ranges of the Western Burrowing Owl in North America; modified from the

Birds of North America species account (Haug et al. 1993), North American Breeding Bird Survey

distribution map (Sauer et al. 2001), individual papers from the Proceedings of the Second International

Burrowing Owl Symposium (Journal of Raptor Research 35(4) 2001), and personal communications with

local experts. Historical range (pre-1970’s) taken from Zarn (1974), Wedgwood (1978), and from personal

communications with local experts. In states that lacked detailed distributional data, Burrowing Owls were

presumed to be absent from areas of forest or rugged mountains. The historical range is unknown for

Mexico (from Wellicome and Holroyd 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Fig. 2. Burrowing Owl distribution in Mexico during the breeding (16 April – 15 October) and non-breeding

(16 October – 15 April) seasons as determined from 279 museum specimens and literature documentation

(Enriquez-Rocha 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Fig. 3. Winter distribution of the Burrowing Owls in the United States from Christmas Bird Count (CBC)

data (1966-1989). Shading represents the species relative abundance (birds/100 party hours) averaged for

each CBC circle and smoothed over the species distribution (Sauer et al. 1996).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Fig. 4. Breeding Bird Survey trends for Burrowing Owls in the United States and Canada (1966-96, 

Sauer et al. 2002). These trends do not necessarily reflect statistical significance (see Table 2). . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Fig. A-1. Distribution of the Burrowing Owl in Arizona from the Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas project

(Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas, Unpubl. data (1993-2001), C. Wise, pers. commun.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Fig. A-2. Distribution of Burrowing Owl Populations in California, 1991-1993 (9,266 breeding pairs, 

estimate) (DeSante et al. unpubl. ms.).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Fig. A-3. Distribution of Burrowing Owls in Colorado from the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas project 

(Jones 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Fig. A-4. Distribution of Burrowing Owls in Kansas from the Kansas Breeding Bird Atlas project 

(Busby and Zimmerman 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Fig. A-5. Latilong distribution of Burrowing Owls in Montana. B = direct evidence of breeding, 

b = indirect evidence of breeding, t = species observed, but no evidence of breeding (Montana Bird

Distribution Committee 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Fig. A-6. Distribution of Burrowing Owls in Nebraska, based on breeding evidence post-1960 

(Ducey 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Fig. A-7. Distribution of Burrowing Owls in Nevada from the Nevada Breeding Bird Atlas project 

(Unpubl. data). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Fig. A-8. Distribution of Burrowing Owls in North Dakota, prior to 1972. Filled squares = nest or 

dependent young recorded from 1950 to 1972. Empty squares = nests or dependent young recorded prior 

to 1950. Filled triangles = territorial males or pairs recorded from 1950 to 1972. Empty triangles =

territorial males or pairs recorded prior to 1950 (Stewart 1975).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Fig. A-9. Distribution of Burrowing Owls in Oklahoma (Oklahoma Breeding Bird Atlas Project, 

D. Reinking, pers. commun.).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Fig. A-10. Distribution of confirmed (n = 49), probable (n = 9), and possible (n = 37) breeding activity 

of Burrowing Owls in Oregon from the Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas project (Adamus et al. 2001).. . . . . . . . . 78

vi Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

List of Figures
Fig. A-11. Distribution of Burrowing Owl breeding activity and observation in South Dakota from the 

South Dakota Breeding Bird Atlas project (Peterson 1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Fig. A-12. Distribution of Burrowing Owl observations in Utah (Utah Natural Heritage Program, 

A. Axel, pers. commun.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Fig. A-13. Distribution of Burrowing Owls burrows in Washington (Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Wildlife Resources Data System, J. Brookshier, pers. commun.).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Fig. A-14. Historic Burrowing Owl records (dots) from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Wildlife Observation System and reoccupancy survey sites with Burrowing Owls (diamonds) in 1999 

(from Korfanta et al. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Fig. A-15. Numbers of Burrowing Owl records per year in the Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Wildlife Observation System. The trend line for the 1986 – 1997 period represents a period of presumed

consistent search effort (from Korfanta et al. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

List of Figures vii
Table 1. Legal status and natural heritage status of Burrowing Owls in the United States, Canada, 

and Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 2. North American Breeding Bird Survey trends, significance level (P), sample size (n) and 

95% confidence intervals (CI) for the Burrowing Owl during three different survey periods 

(Sauer et al. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 3. Christmas Bird Count trends, sample sizes (n), 95% confidence intervals (CI), significance levels 

(P), and relative abundance (RA) for the Burrowing Owl in areas with sufficient data for analysis,

1959-1988 (Sauer et al. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 4. Burrowing Owl population estimates for states, provinces, and countries. James and Espie 

(1997) surveyed state/provincial biologists in 1992 to determine approximate total breeding populations.

Other populations estimates are presented only for statewide/province-wide estimates; additional local

population estimates can be found in Appendix A: State Summaries of Burrowing Owl Status. . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table A-1. Comparison of mean density, survival, and reproductive rates of Burrowing Owls at four 

sites in California.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table A-2. Estimates of juvenile survival rates necessary for population stability under different 

adult reproductive and survival rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table A-3. Distribution and abundance of Florida Burrowing Owls by major subpopulation and county. . . . 50

Table A-4. Number of occupied, unoccupied, destroyed, and not found Burrowing Owl nests located in

Washington during Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife surveys in 1999 and 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Table B-1: General categories of conservation recommendations for Burrowing Owls from states for 

which recommendations were found. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Table D-1: Scientific and common names of animals mentioned in the “Status Assessment and 

Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Table D-2: Scientific and common names of plants mentioned in the “Status Assessment and 

Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

viii Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

List of Tables
The Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia

hypugaea) is a grassland specialist distributed

throughout w. North America, primarily in open

areas with short vegetation and bare ground in

desert, grassland, and shrub-steppe environments.

Burrowing Owls are dependent on the presence 

of fossorial mammals (primarily prairie dogs and

ground squirrels), whose burrows are used for

nesting and roosting. Burrowing Owls are protected

by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the United

States and Mexico. They are listed as Endangered in

Canada and Threatened in Mexico. They are

considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) to be a Bird of Conservation Concern at

the national level, in three USFWS regions, and in

nine Bird Conservation Regions . At the state level,

Burrowing Owls are listed as Endangered in

Minnesota, Threatened in Colorado, and as a Species

of Concern in California, Montana, Oklahoma,

Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Burrowing Owls historically bred from sc. and sw.

Canada southward through the Great Plains and w.

United States and south to c. Mexico. Although the

historical breeding range is largely intact, range

contractions have occurred primarily at peripheral

regions, in s. Canada, the ne. Great Plains, and parts

of California and the Pacific Northwest. Burrowing

Owls winter in the sw. and sc. United States,

throughout Mexico, and occasionally as far south 

as Panama.

Populations of Burrowing Owls have declined in

several large regions, notably in the ne. Great Plains

and Canada. However, estimates of population

trends in many regions are generally inconclusive

due to small samples sizes and high data variability.

Population trends as determined from North

American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data were

inconsistent, with some regions exhibiting positive

trends and other regions exhibiting negative trends.

When taken as a whole, the BBS indicated an area 

of generally declining populations in the northern

half of the Great Plains, and generally increasing

populations in the interior U.S. and in some

southwestern deserts. The Christmas Bird Count

indicated a significant population decline in

California (1966-1989). Local surveys have detected

declining populations and/or range reductions in

California, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska,

New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,

South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and throughout

the range of the species in Canada.

Primary threats across the North American range 

of the Burrowing Owl are habitat loss due to land

conversions for agricultural and urban development,

and habitat degradation and loss due to reductions 

of burrowing mammal populations. The elimination

of burrowing mammals through control programs

and habitat loss has been identified as the primary

factor responsible for declines of Burrowing Owls.

Additional threats to Burrowing Owls include

habitat fragmentation, predation, illegal shooting,

pesticides and other contaminants. The types and

significance of threats during migration and

wintering are poorly understood.

The preservation of native grasslands and

populations of burrowing mammals is ultimately

critical for the conservation of Burrowing Owls.

Efforts to maintain and increase populations of

burrowing mammals through reduction of lethal

control programs and landowner and land manager

education should be undertaken. Burning, mowing,

and grazing may be employed to maintain suitable

habitat structure for nesting Burrowing Owls,

although additional research is needed. Efforts to

reintroduce or relocate Burrowing Owls should be

critically reviewed to determine efficacy and best

methods. Current large-scale monitoring efforts 

are generally inadequate. Effective programs to

better determine actual population trends and

demographics of Burrowing Owl populations should

be developed and implemented.

1

Executive Summary
Many individuals contributed significant time,

literature, and expertise to this review including: R.

Anthony, A. Axel, P. Arrowood, E. Atkinson, A.

Bammann, J. Barclay, J. Belthoff, J. Brookshier, N.

Brown, K. Brunson, D. Buckland, K. Burton, W.

Busby, K. Butts, K. Clayton, L. Cole, C. Collins, C.

Conway, T. Corman, E. Cummings, C. Cwiklinski, N.

Dawson, K. De Smet, M. Desmond, J. Dinsmore, B.

Domagalski, E. Dowd-Stukel, F. Esparza, C. Finley,

T. Floyd, L. Fredrickson, D. Freed, J. Freilich, J.

Friday, S. Grassel, R. Griebel, D. Harvey, M.

Hetrick, B. Hodorff, G. Holroyd, S. Houston, M.

Howery, S. Hutchings, L. Igl, D. Keinath, S. Kendall,

N. Korfanta, J. Lincer, M. Lockwood, M. Martell, D.

Mehlman, B. Millsap, P. Mineau, S. Moore, R.

Murphy, J. Parrish, R. Peterson, D. Plumpton, D.

Reinking, T. Rich, D. Rintoul, L. Romin, M. Rowe, C.

Rustay, L. Sager, K. Scalise, J. Schmutz, C.

Shackelford, G. Skiba, M.K. Skoruppa, J. Slater, K.

Steenhof, C. Stowers, L. Trulio, T. Uhmann, T.

VerCauteren, B. Vermillion, T. Wellicome, R.

Williams, J. Winter, C. Wise, M. Woodin, J. Woollett,

and J. Yamamoto.

Special thanks to G. Holroyd and T. Wellicome, with

the Canadian Wildlife Service, for assistance in

gathering literature, providing maps and graphs,

and making contacts. Special thanks also to D.

Rosenberg for providing additional information and

thorough reviews. T. Uhmann and N. Brown

provided bibliographies. M. J. Cowing and the

Richard R. Olendorff Memorial Library at the

Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

provided extensive literature. P. Sutherland provided

assistance compiling the literature and editing the

manuscript. Thanks also to D. Dark, K. Sims, and L.

Semo for assistance with literature review,

compiling, and editing. Thanks to A. Araya for

providing valuable assistance.

We thank the following for providing reviews of 

an earlier draft: J. Barclay, B. Busby, J. Dillon, C.

Finley, K. M. Giesen, D. B. Hall, L. Hanebury, G.

Holroyd, N. Korfanta, D. W. Mehlman, E. J. Miller,

R. K. Murphy, D. Rosenberg, J. S. Shackford, S.

Sherrod, K. Steenhof, T. VerCauteren, and R. D.

Williams.

2 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

Acknowledgments
Two subspecies of Burrowing Owl (Athene

cunicularia) occur in North America: the Western

Burrowing Owl (A. c. hypugaea) and the Florida

Burrowing Owl (A. c. floridana). Although this

status assessment is focused on North American

populations of the Western Burrowing Owl

(henceforth Burrowing Owl), a state summary for

the Florida Burrowing Owl is included in this

document (Appendix A) to provide complete

information on the species in the United States. The

Florida state summary is an update of information

included in Millsap (1996).

Class: Aves

Order: Strigiformes

Family: Strigidae

Genus: Athene

Species: A. cunicularia

Subspecies: A. c. hypugaea, A. c. floridana

Authority: (Molina, Subspp. Bonaparte)

Originally named Strix cunicularia by Molina in

1782, the Burrowing Owl received several taxonomic

changes until placed in the genus Speotyto and now

Athene (Clark et al. 1997, AOU 1998). A. cunicularia

occurs as a breeding and/or wintering species

throughout w. North America, Central America, and

extensive portions of South America with disjunct

populations in Florida and the Caribbean Islands. A.

c. hypugaea occurs in North America to the eastern

limits of the Great Plains and from s. British

Columbia to Manitoba and into Central America as

far south as Panama (Haug et al. 1993). This

subspecies occurs primarily in prairies, grasslands,

shrub-steppe, desert, and agricultural areas in

North America (Haug et al. 1993). A. c. floridana

occurs in Florida north to Madison and Duval

counties (AOU 1998).

3

Taxonomy
United States

From 1994-1996, the Western Burrowing Owl was

designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) as a Category 2 species for consideration

to be listed as a threatened or endangered species.

In 1996 the Category 2 designation was

discontinued. The Burrowing Owl currently is

federally protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty

Act (1918) in the United States and Mexico. The

Western Burrowing Owl is listed by the USFWS as a

National Bird of Conservation Concern (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 2002). It is also listed as a Bird

of Conservation Concern in USFWS Regions 1

(Pacific Region, mainland only), 2 (Southwest

Region), and 6 (Mountain-Prairie Region) as well as

in Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) 9 (Great

Basin), 11 (Prairie Potholes), 16 (S. Rockies/Colorado

Plateau), 17 (Badlands and Prairies), 18 (Shortgrass

Prairie), and U.S. Portions of BCR 32 (Coastal

California), 33 (Sonoran and Mojave Deserts), 35

(Chihuahuan Desert) and 36 (Tamaulipan

Brushlands) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002).

The Burrowing Owl is listed as Endangered,

Threatened, or as a Species of Concern in 9 states

and 4 Canadian provinces (Table 1). It is given a

Global Heritage Status Rank of G4 (apparently

secure globally though it may be quite rare in parts

of its range) and is listed as a Convention on

International Trade in Endangered Species

(CITES), Appendix II species (NatureServe

Explorer 2001).

Canada

In 1979, the Western Burrowing Owl was listed as

“Threatened” based on Wedgwood (1979),

reconfirmed in 1991 (Haug and Didiuk 1991), and

changed to “Endangered” in 1995 (Wellicome and

Haug 1995).

Mexico

In 1994, Burrowing Owls were listed as a federally

Threatened (Amenazadas) species (Secretaria de

Desarollo Social de Mexico 1994 in Sheffield 1997a).

4 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

Legal Status
Legal Status 5

Table 1. Legal status and natural heritage status of Burrowing Owls in the United States, Canada, and Mexico

Area Legal status Natural Heritage statusa

United States None Apparently Secure

Arizona None Vulnerable

California Species of Concern Imperiled

Colorado Threatened Apparently Secure

Idaho None Vulnerable/Apparently Secure

Iowa Accidental breeder Unranked

Kansas None Vulnerable

Minnesota Endangered Critically Imperiled

Montana Species of Concern Vulnerable

Nebraska None Vulnerable

Nevada None Vulnerable

New Mexico None Apparently Secure

North Dakota None Unranked

Oklahoma Species of Concern Vulnerable

Oregon Species of Concern Imperiled

South Dakota None Vulnerable/Apparently Secure

Texas None Vulnerable

Utah Species of Concern Vulnerable

Washington Species of Concern Vulnerable

Wyoming Species of Concern Vulnerable

Canada Endangered Vulnerable

Alberta Endangered Vulnerable

British Columbia Endangered Critically Imperiled

Manitoba Endangered Critically Imperiled

Saskatchewan Endangered Imperiled

Mexico Threatened Unranked

a–Global status = Apparently Secure
The Burrowing Owl is a small owl (19.5-25.0 cm,

~150 g), with long slender tarsi covered with short

hair-like feathers that terminate in sparse bristles

on the feet. The head is rounded, lacks ear tufts, and

is chocolate in color with white streaking or spotting.

There are buffy-white margins around the eyes and

a white throat patch. Eyes are lemon-yellow and the

beak is pale horn-colored. The wings are relatively

long and rounded, the tail is short, and both are

brown with buff-white barring. The undertail

coverts are white. The dorsal area including head,

back, and scapulars are heavily spotted with buffywhite. The belly of adults is buffy and heavily barred

with brown on the sides. Juveniles are similar to

adults but are unstreaked to lightly streaked, light

to brownish buff below, and have more pale

secondary coverts (Haug et al. 1993). The Burrowing

Owl is the only North American strigiform not

exhibiting reversed size dimorphism (Haug et al.

1993).

6 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

Description
Breeding

In Canada, the historical breeding range of the

Burrowing Owl includes se. British Columbia, s.

Alberta, s. Saskatchewan, and sw. Manitoba (Fig. 1,

Haug et al. 1993, Wellicome and Holroyd 2001). In

the United States the historical breeding range

includes e. Washington and Oregon, s., c. and e.

California, c. and e. Montana, s. Idaho, Utah,

Nevada, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico,

North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, w. and c.

Kansas, w. and c. Oklahoma, w. Minnesota, nw. Iowa,

and most of w. Texas (Fig. 1). The breeding range

has contracted primarily on the eastern and

northern edges (Wellicome and Holroyd 2001).

Anecdotal observations suggest accidental breeding

may have occurred in Wisconsin (R. Domalgalski,

pers. commun.). Migrants or vagrants have been

documented in Louisiana (B. Vermillion, pers.

commun.), Missouri (Haug et al. 1993), Arkansas

(James and Neal 1986), and Illinois (Illinois Natural

History Information Network 2000). The breeding

range extends south to c. Mexico (Fig. 1, Fig. 2)

(Enriquez-Rocha 1997, Wellicome and Holroyd 2001).

Migration

Little information exists on migration routes and

times. Burrowing Owls migrate north during March

and April, arriving the first week of May in

Saskatchewan (Haug et al. 1993). The majority of

Burrowing Owls that breed in Canada and the n.

United States are believed to migrate south during

September and October. 

Burrowing Owls banded in British Columbia,

Washington, Oregon, and California migrated

southward along the Pacific coast. Burrowing Owls

banded in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,

Montana, and North Dakota migrated southward

through Nebraska and Kansas into Texas. One

Burrowing Owl from Manitoba was recovered in the

Gulf of Mexico. Burrowing Owls banded in

Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado,

Kansas, and Oklahoma have been recovered in

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Mexico. Recoveries

indicate that some Burrowing Owls will winter in

California and Baja California, Mexico. Burrowing

Owls breeding in North and South Dakota are

believed to winter in Texas.

Winter

The small number of banding recoveries (n = 27,

1927 through 1990) provides little information

regarding wintering areas (Haug et al. 1993).

Burrowing Owls winter regularly from Mexico (Fig.

2) to El Salvador and are casual to accidental to w.

Panama (AOU 1998). They are recorded on the

Christmas Bird Count (CBC) in Arizona, California,

New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Mexico (Fig. 3;

James and Ethier 1989). They will also winter north

of these states, particularly in Oklahoma and

Kansas, in very low abundance. They will also winter

in low abundance in sc. Nevada (Hall et al. In

review).

Little information exists on Burrowing Owls in

Mexico and breeding and wintering areas have not

been well described. Based on museum specimens,

the Burrowing Owl is the third most common owl

species in the country and sixty-three percent of

museum specimens (n = 279) from Mexico were

collected in the non-breeding season (EnriquezRocha 1997); however, it is unlikely that these

collections reflect true relative abundance. These

collections documented a wide distribution,

occurring in 28 of the 32 Mexican states. Nonbreeding data were from the Pacific region, some

central states, and from the se. Gulf of Mexico

(including the Yucatan Peninsula). Both breeding

and nonbreeding records document Burrowing Owls

in n. Mexico, Baja California, and some states from

the Gulf of Mexico.

7

Distribution
8 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

Fig. 1. Current and historical ranges of the Western Burrowing Owl in North America; modified from the

Birds of North America species account (Haug et al. 1993), North American Breeding Bird Survey

distribution map (Sauer et al. 2001), individual papers from the Proceedings of the Second International

Burrowing Owl Symposium (Journal of Raptor Research 35(4) 2001), and personal communications with

local experts. Historical range (pre-1970’s) taken from Zarn (1974), Wedgwood (1978), and from personal

communications with local experts. In states that lacked detailed distributional data, Burrowing Owls were

presumed to be absent from areas of forest or rugged mountains. The historical range is unknown for

Mexico (from Wellicome and Holroyd 2001). 

Manitoba

Saskatchewan

Alberta

British Columbia

Washington

Oregon

Nevada

Idaho

Montana

North Dakota

South Dakota

Nebraska

Kansas

Oklahoma

Texas

Coahuila

Zacatecas

Colorado Utah

New Mexico Arizona

Sonora

California

Baja

California 

Norte

Baja

California 

Sur

Iowa

Minnesota

Wyoming

Nuevo

Leon

Chihuahua

Durango

San Luis

Potosi Current breeding range (1990s)

Historical breeding range
Distribution 9

Fig. 2. Burrowing Owl distribution in Mexico during the breeding (16 April – 15 October) and non-breeding

(16 October – 15 April) seasons as determined from 279 museum specimens and literature documentation

(Enriquez-Rocha 1997).

Breeding Season

Nonbreeding Season

Both Seasons

No Records

Gulf of Mexico

Pacific Ocean

N
Breeding

Phenology—Burrowing Owls are generally found on

the northern breeding grounds from mid-March

through September (Haug et al. 1993). Courtship

and pair formation occur in March and April in most

areas (Grant 1965, Butts 1973) but may begin as

early as late December in California (Thomsen 1971).

Incubation lasts 28-30 days and is performed by the

female (Coulombe 1971, Thomsen 1971, Haug et al.

1993). The young begin feathering out at two weeks

of age. The young run and forage by four weeks of

age and are capable of sustained flight by six weeks.

Burrowing Owl families often switch burrows every

10-15 days when the young are three to four weeks

old and remain as a loose-knit group until early fall

when the young may begin to disperse to nearby

burrows (Haug et al. 1993, Dechant et al. 1999).

Diet—Burrowing Owls are opportunistic feeders,

primarily taking arthropods, small mammals, birds,

amphibians and reptiles (Haug et al. 1993). Seasonal

variability in food habits occurs, with vertebrates

occurring more commonly in the winter diet and

arthropods occurring more frequently in the

summer diet (Haug et al. 1993).

Foraging—Burrowing Owls forage in a variety of

habitats, including cropland, pasture, prairie dog

colonies, fallow fields, and sparsely vegetated areas

(Butts and Lewis 1982, Thompson and Anderson

1988, Desmond 1991, Haug et al. 1993, Wellicome

1994). Vegetation >1 m tall may be too tall for

Burrowing Owls to locate or catch prey (Haug and

Oliphant 1987, 1990; Wellicome 1994).

Productivity—Burrowing Owls are capable of

breeding at one year of age. However, some females

may not breed the first year after hatching, or may

breed away from the natal site the first year after

hatching and then return to the natal site in their

second year after hatching (Lutz and Plumpton

1999). Second broods have rarely been documented

in the Burrowing Owl (Haug et al. 1993). Average

clutch size over the range of the species was 6.5 eggs

(range 4-12; Haug et al. 1993). In Canada, percent

successful reproduction ranged from 45-97% and

mean fledging rate ranged from 2.1 to 6.3 young/

successful nest (Hjertaas et al. 1995). In British

Columbia, 58% (n = 12) of nesting attempts were

successful and produced 31 young with a mean brood

size of 4.1 ± 1.3 young/successful nest and 2.6 young/

attempt (Hjertaas et al. 1995). In Manitoba, average

brood size was 5.1 young and overall productivity

was 3.4 young/nesting pair (De Smet 1997). In New

Mexico, Burrowing Owls produced 3.33 ± 1.49

nestlings and 2.55 ± 1.49 fledglings in human-altered

habitats and 1.05 ± 1.23 nestlings and 0.68 ± 0.98

fledglings in natural habitats (Botelho and Arrowood

1996).

Territory—Burrowing Owls generally stay close to

the nest burrow during daylight and forage farther

from the nest between dusk and dawn (Haug 1985,

Haug and Oliphant 1990). Nesting-territory size was

4.8-6.4 ha in Minnesota (n = 2) and 4-6 ha in North

Dakota (n = estimated 5-9 pairs) (Grant 1965).

Average diurnal ranges of Burrowing Owls in e.

Wyoming encompassed 3.5 ha (number of foraging

areas not given) (Thompson 1984). Foraging-areas

are considerably larger than nesting-areas. In s.

Saskatchewan, mean foraging territory size for

males ranged from 14 to 481 ha (mean = 241 ha; n =

6) (Haug 1985, Haug and Oliphant 1990). In a heavily

cultivated region of s. Saskatchewan, foraging

territories for males averaged 35 ha (n = 4) (Sissons

et al. 2001).

Aggregations—In nc. Colorado, mean inter-nest

distances for Burrowing Owls nesting in black-tailed

prairie dog colonies was 101 m (n = 8) (Plumpton

1992). Mean nearest-neighbor distance for

Burrowing Owls nesting in 20 American badger

excavations in w. Nebraska was 240 m, compared to

mean nearest-neighbor distances of 105 m for 118

non-clustered nests in small prairie dog colonies and

125 m for 105 nest clusters in large prairie dog

colonies (Desmond 1991, Desmond et al. 1995,

Desmond and Savidge 1996). Available excavations

may be limiting to Burrowing Owls nesting outside

of prairie dog colonies

Within prairie dog colonies, Burrowing Owls have

been observed to aggregate their nests into clusters.

Mean densities of Burrowing Owls within clusters in

larger colonies (≥ 35 ha) were 1.2-1.3 individuals/ha

(n = 21). In smaller colonies (<35 ha) with random

distributions, mean densities of Burrowing Owls

ranged from 1.7 to 5.8 individuals/ha (n = 26).

Clustered nest distributions may reduce depredation

risks by allowing individuals to alert one another to

potential predators (Butts 1973, Desmond 1991,

Desmond et al. 1995, Desmond and Savidge 1996).

10 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

Natural History
In ne. Colorado, 27 prairie dog colonies with

Burrowing Owls ranged in size from 1.9 to 167.6 ha

(Hughes 1993). In w. Nebraska, fledging success

rates were positively correlated with the size of

prairie dog colonies (Desmond 1991).

Mortality and Predation—The annual mortality

rate in Oklahoma was estimated at 62% (adults and

young combined) (Butts 1973). At two sites in s.

Saskatchewan, adult female survival (s) (s = 0.62, n

= 12 and s = 1.00, n = 2) was higher than survival

for adult males (s = 0.48, n = 11 and s = 0.38, n = 5)

or juveniles (s = 0.45, n = 21 and s = 0.48, n = 25)

(Clayton and Schmutz 1999).

Predators of Burrowing Owls include badger,

domestic cat, weasel, skunk, domestic dog, coyote,

Swainson’s, Ferruginous, Red-tailed, and Cooper’s

hawks, Merlin, Prairie, and Peregrine falcons, Great

Horned Owl, American Crow (Haug et al. 1993),

snakes, bobcats and Northern Harrier (Leupin and

Low 2001).

Site and Burrow Fidelity—Individual Burrowing

Owls have moderate to high site fidelity to general

breeding areas, prairie dog colonies, and even to

particular nest burrows. Of 31 adults banded in

Colorado in 1990, 39% returned in 1991, whereas only

5% of 369 Burrowing Owls banded as nestlings prior

to 1994 returned in one or more years after hatch

(Plumpton and Lutz 1993, Lutz and Plumpton 1999).

Eight of the remaining 12 returning adults (66%)

reused the same prairie dog town as the prior year

(Plumpton and Lutz 1993). Adult males and females

returned at similar rates (19% and 14%, respectively)

(Lutz and Plumpton 1999). Adult males and females

nested in formerly used sites at similar rates (75%

and 63%, respectively). In Albuquerque, New

Mexico, all returning males selected the same

burrow they had previously inhabited unless the

burrow had been destroyed (n = 9, Martin 1973). In

Manitoba, 7% of failed nests (n = 57) were reused in

consecutive years but 23% (n = 122) of successful

nests were reused (De Smet 1997). Burrow fidelity

has been reported in some areas; however, more

frequently, Burrowing Owls reuse traditional

nesting areas without necessarily using the same

burrow (Haug et al. 1993, Dechant et al. 1999).

Burrow and nest sites are re-used at a higher rate if

the bird has reproduced successfully during the

previous year (Haug et al. 1993).

Natural History 11

Fig. 3. Winter distribution of Burrowing Owls in the United States from Christmas Bird Count (CBC) data

(1966-1989). Shading represents the species relative abundance (birds/100 party hours) averaged for each

CBC circle and smoothed over the species distribution (Sauer et al. 1996).
Breeding

Burrowing Owl nesting habitat consists of open

areas with mammal burrows. They use a wide

variety of arid and semi-arid environments, with

well-drained, level to gently sloping areas

characterized by sparse vegetation and bare ground

(Haug et al. 1993, Dechant et al. 1999). Breeding

habitats include native prairie, tame pasture,

hayland, fallow fields, road and railway rights-ofway, and urban habitats (e.g., campuses, airports,

and golf courses) (Dechant et al. 1999). Burrowing

Owls do not occupy all apparently available habitat

(i.e., prairie dog or ground squirrel colonies).

Unused colonies have been documented in 

virtually all states within the current range 

of the Burrowing Owl.

Burrowing Owls require a mammal burrow or

natural cavity surrounded by sparse vegetation.

Burrow availability is often limiting in areas lacking

colonial burrowing rodents (Desmond and Savidge

1996). Burrowing Owls frequently use burrows of

black-tailed prairie dogs. They nest less commonly

in the burrows of Douglas’ ground squirrels, whitetailed prairie dogs, Gunnison’s prairie dogs, yellowbellied marmots, woodchucks, skunks, foxes,

coyotes, and nine-banded armadillos (Dechant et al.

1999). Where mammal burrows are scarce,

Burrowing Owls have been found nesting in natural

rock and lava cavities (Gleason 1978, Gleason and

Johnson 1985, Rich 1986).

Burrowing Owls may use “satellite” or non-nesting

burrows, moving chicks at 10-14 days presumably to

reduce risk of predation (Desmond and Savidge

1998) and possibly to avoid nest parasites (Dechant

et al. 1999). Successful nests in Nebraska had more

active burrows within 75 m of the nest burrow than

unsuccessful nests (Desmond and Savidge 1999).

Observations made at 15 burrow sites by James and

Seabloom (1968) revealed that family units in sw.

North Dakota used from one to three satellite

burrows, although a few family units used from two

to ten satellite burrows. In e. Wyoming, most (actual

number not given) nesting areas contained between

two and 11 available burrows (Thompson 1984).

Three Burrowing Owl families in Iowa used from

one to five satellite burrows (Scott 1940). In

Oklahoma, black-tailed prairie dog colonies

appeared to be the only habitat with a sufficient

density of burrows to provide satellite burrows for

Burrowing Owls (Butts and Lewis 1982).

Migration

No information is available on migration habitats.

They are presumed to be similar to breeding

habitats (Haug et al. 1993).

Winter

Little is known about wintering habitat

requirements beyond what the species uses during

the breeding season, but there seems to be increased

use of agricultural fields with culverts in some areas

(Haug et al. 1993, W. Howe, pers. commun.). In

Louisiana, in winter, Burrowing Owls are typically

found in dune vegetation or near woody debris on

beaches, in pastures, and in agricultural fields (B.

Vermillion, pers. commun.). In sc. Nevada, burrows

used in winter were the same as those used during

the breeding season (Hall et al. In review).

12 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

Habitat
Population Estimates and Trends

Breeding Bird Survey—The Breeding Bird Survey

(BBS) revealed a mixture of population trends

throughout the Burrowing Owl breeding range in

North America (Table 2, Fig. 4) (Sauer et al. 2002).

BBS trends for Burrowing Owls are largely limited

by small sample sizes and the species is not

adequately sampled over a large part of their

breeding range. Trends in nearly all regions are

limited by important or potential deficiencies (Sauer

et al. 2002). However, when taken as a whole,

generally declining populations are present in the

northern half of the Great Plains, and generally

increasing populations are present in the northwest

interior and in some southwestern deserts of the

United States (Table 2, Fig. 4).

Christmas Bird Count—Burrowing Owl abundance

is poorly monitored by the CBC. Most Burrowing

Owls from the Great Plains winter in Mexico where

CBC coverage is poor. On the Gulf Coast of Texas,

wintering Burrowing Owls are difficult to detect and

samples sizes are small. The effort to locate

wintering Burrowing Owls has increased in recent

years (G. Holroyd, pers. commun.). A significant

decreasing trend was observed only in California;

trends for other areas were non-significant (Table 3)

(Sauer et al. 1996). James and Ethier (1989) detected

stable populations in most wintering areas in New

Mexico, Louisiana, and Mexico for 1955-85. There

were no significant changes in Arizona, New Mexico,

Texas, and Louisiana from 1954-86, or in Mexico

between 1974 and 1985 (James and Ethier 1989)

Other Surveys, United States—Surveys in

California in 1986-91 found population decreases of

23-52% in the number of breeding groups and 12-

27% in the number of breeding pairs of owls

(DeSante et al. 1997). Populations in w. Nebraska

declined 58% (91 to 38 nesting pairs) between 1990-

1996 (Desmond and Savidge 1998). Populations in

New Mexico have exhibited mixed trends: stable or

increasing populations were associated with the

presence of suitable habitat and increased

precipitation and food availability while decreasing

populations were associated with loss of suitable

habitat (Arrowood et al. 2001). In Wyoming, only 11%

of 86 historical sites were occupied in 1998; however,

the importance of this finding is uncertain due to the

tendency for Burrowing Owl colonies to move

(Korfanta et al. 2001). The Wyoming Game and Fish

Department’s Wildlife Observation System showed

populations generally increasing between 1974-80

and then decreasing between 1981-97 (Korfanta et al.

2001). In North Dakota, Burrowing Owls have

disappeared from the eastern third of the state and

is uncommon to rare in the best habitats north and

east of the Missouri River (Murphy et al. 2001). In

sw. North Dakota the current population trend is not

clear, but is probably closely tied to populations of

prairie dogs (Murphy et al. 2001). Based on

questionnaires, literature searches, personal

contacts and field observations, Brown (2001)

concluded that Burrowing Owls are widespread but

uncommon in Arizona. In Oklahoma there are an

estimated 800-1000 breeding Burrowing Owls,

restricted primarily to the panhandle of the state

(Sheffield and Howery 2001). In a survey of National

Grasslands, Sidle et al. (2001) found higher

occupancy of active prairie dog towns in the

southern Great Plains (93%) than in the northern

Great Plains (59%).

13

Populations
Table 2. North American Breeding Bird Survey trends, significance level (P), sample size (n) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the Burrowing Owl during three

different survey periods (Sauer et al. 2002). 

1966–2001 1966–1979 1980–2001

Area (data credibility)a Trendb P n 95% CI Trendb P n Trendb P n

State/ProvinceAlberta (R) –8.5 0.42 6 –27.2 10.1 51.8 0.26 3 3.9 0.93 3Arizona (Y) 7.7 0.65 9 –23.8 39.20 — — — –3.1 0.88 8California (B) 5.9 0.01 32 1.9 9.8 –0.9 0.92 19 5.4 0.03 24Colorado (Y) –4.0 0.48 38 –14.9 6.9 –7.8 0.40 9 2.7 0.57 36Idaho (R) 19.1 0.07 9 1.4 36.8 39.2 0.03 3 28.4 0.06 9Kansas (Y) –1.1 0.80 11 –9.1 7.0 10.8 0.34 8 11.7 0.69 8Montana (R) –12.6 0.11 10 –26.5 1.3 — — — –14.8 0.19 9Nebraska (Y) 6.5 0.57 13 –14.9 27.9 33.9 0.11 8 3.8 0.72 8Nevada (Y) 10.9 0.30 9 –8.2 30.1 0.9 0.97 3 12.1 0.14 6New Mexico (Y) 0.7 0.85 37 –7.0 8.4 -3.9 0.03 6 2.2 0.77 35North Dakota (R) –3.2 0.44 13 –10.9 4.6 19.6 0.15 7 -15.8 0.00 9Oklahoma (R) -11.5 0.00 10 -14.1 –8.8 14.2 0.37 6 –4.5 0.34 8Oregon (Y) 3.8 0.63 11 –11.0 18.5 –14.2 0.66 5 15.5 0.20 8Saskatchewan (R) -26.0 0.04 2 -29.3 –22.7 — — — — — —South Dakota (Y) –7.2 0.16 19 –16.9 2.5 5.2 0.52 14 -11.4 0.08 10Texas (Y) –1.9 0.39 28 –6.3 2.4 8.4 0.27 14 –5.2 0.26 24Utah (Y) 0.9 0.89 14 –11.3 13.0 — — — –6.6 0.14 14Washington (Y) –7.8 0.60 7 –35.2 19.7 — — — –19.4 0.20 6Wyoming (Y) -23.7 0.04 11 -42.3 –5.2 10.5 0.76 2 5.9 0.53 9Physiographic strataSouth Texas Brushlands –3.9 0.46 2 –10.9 3.0 — — — — — —High Plains Border (Y) 5.7 0.45 17 –8.5 19.8 3.1 0.84 11 20.0 0.55 11High Plains (Y) –4.0 0.43 50 –14.0 6.0 –1.9 0.85 17 2.4 0.61 46

Drift Prairie (Y) -26.0 0.01 8 -37.7 –14.3 –13.5 0.40 7 — — —

14 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Table 2. Continued

1966–2001 1966–1979 1980–2001

Area (data credibility)a Trendb P n 95% CI Trendb P n Trendb P n

Glaciated Missouri Plateau (R) -11.0 0.04 15 -20.0 –2.0 23.0 0.12 6 –12.8 0.16 10Great Plain Roughlands (R) –2.6 0.40 30 –8.6 3.4 16.9 0.03 12 –10.4 0.04 22Rolling Red Plains (Y) –0.9 0.77 7 –7.0 5.1 –2.7 0.81 3 1.1 0.75 7Staked Plains (B) –2.3 0.39 21 –7.6 2.9 10.3 0.27 10 –4.3 0.38 19Chihuahuan Desert (Y) 1.8 0.80 22 –12.2 15.8 43.4 0.33 7 –1.1 0.90 20Great Basin Deserts (Y) 7.3 0.55 8 –15.3 29.9 — — — –1.9 0.83 8Mexican Highlands (Y) 7.1 0.42 2 –3.6 17.8 — — — –8.1 0.55 2Sonoran Desert (Y) 6.6 0.03 10 1.6 11.5 –2.6 0.84 5 5.7 0.11 8Mojave Desert (Y) –1.4 0.84 6 –14.4 11.6 20.6 0.36 4 –20.2 0.33 4Wyoming Basin (Y) -31.0 0.07 4 -53.6 –8.4 10.5 0.76 2 29.0 0.60 2Intermountain Grassland (Y) 2.8 0.57 27 –6.7 12.3 — — — 6.8 0.03 23Basin and Range (Y) 9.9 0.30 13 –7.8 27.6 0.7 0.96 3 5.8 0.43 10Columbia Plateau (R) 12.8 0.04 28 1.1 24.4 33.0 0.00 9 21.6 0.01 24Central Valley (Y) 2.6 0.41 15 –3.3 8.5 –9.6 0.65 9 1.4 0.76 12USFWS RegionsRegion 1 (Y) 7.1 0.00 68 3.5 10.7 5.7 0.41 31 7.2 0.00 53Region 2 (Y) –1.2 0.45 84 –4.4 2.0 –0.5 0.72 29 –1.8 0.63 75Region 6 (Y) –4.4 0.29 129 –12.6 3.7 –0.7 0.92 48 –0.2 0.95 103CountryCanada (R) -12.1 0.01 8 -18.4 –5.9 23.8 0.36 4 -18.7 0.02 4United States (Y) –1.5 0.57 291 –6.5 3.6 0.0 0.99 113 1.6 0.40 237

Survey-wide (Y) -1.5 0.57 299 –6.5 3.6 0.2 0.96 117 1.5 0.41 241a

–Data credibility measure. (R) = RED: Data with an important deficiency. (Y) = Yellow: Data with a potential deficiency. (B) = BLUE: Data with at least 14 samples in the long term, of moderate precision,

and of moderate abundance on routes.

b

–Mean percent change per year

Populations 15
Fig. 4. Breeding Bird Survey trends for Burrowing Owls in the United States and Canada (1966-96, Sauer et

al. 2002). These trends do not necessarily reflect statistical significance (see Table 2).

Table 3. Christmas Bird Count trends, sample sizes (n), 95% confidence intervals (CI), significance levels (P),

and relative abundance (RA) for the Burrowing Owl in areas with sufficient data for analysis, 1959-1988 

(Sauer et al. 1996).

State Trenda n 95% CI P RAb

Arizona 0.2 16 –1.7 2.1 >0.10 0.10

California –1.2 97 –2.3 –0.1 ≤ 0.05 0.29

Texas 1.2 52 –1.3 3.8 >0.10 0.23

Survey-wide 0.2 240 –1.5 1.9 >0.10 0.13

a–Mean percent change per year.

b–Mean number of birds per 100 party hours.

16 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Field-based, quantitative population estimates do

not exist for most states (Table 4). However, James

and Espie (1997) submitted surveys to state

biologists in 1992 to determine approximate total

breeding populations of Burrowing Owls, based on

expert opinion and not necessarily based on field

investigations of true population levels. Additional

population estimates have been made for California,

Colorado, Kansas, Montana, and Oklahoma

(Table 4).

Other Surveys, Canada—Burrowing Owls declined

in Canada from the mid-1970s through at least the

early 1990s (Kirk et al. 1994/95) with up to 50%

declines in some areas (Dundas and Jensen 1994/95).

No complete censuses have been conducted in

Canada, but a variety of studies show widespread

range contraction and declining density (Hjertaas et

al. 1995). Burrowing Owls declined in Alberta,

Saskatchewan, and Manitoba at over 20% per year

over the past decade (Wellicome and Holroyd 2001).

Skeel et al. (2001) documented a 95% decline in

Burrowing Owls reported by landowners in

Saskatchewan for an average annual decline of 21.5%

from 1998-2000. They are effectively extirpated from

Manitoba with one pair nesting every second year

since 1999 (K. De Smet, pers. commun.). Shyry et al.

(2001) reported a significant decrease in the density

of Burrowing Owl nests near Hannah, Alberta

between 1991 and 2000. The density of nests near

Brooks, Alberta did not significantly change from

1991 to 2000.

Based on a survey of biologists, the total breeding

population for Canada was estimated as

approximately 2,000-20,000 pairs, with the major

populations occurring in Alberta and Saskatchewan

(Table 4) (James and Espie 1997). In Alberta, the

population estimate dropped from 1,500 to 800 birds

(47% decline) from 1978-1990 (Wellicome 1997).

Other Surveys, Mexico—Burrowing Owls breed in

much of Mexico but the population is unknown. In

nw. Chihuahua they occurred on 62% (n = 34) of

surveyed prairie dog colonies for a total of 87 owls.

Numbers ranged from 0-16 owls/prairie dog colony

and 0.00-7.69 owls/ha (VerCauteren et al. In review).

Two BBS routes in the same area of nw. Chihuahua

average 19 and 32 Burrowing Owls per route

between 1998 and 2001. As many as 26 adults were

visible from a single point on one occasion (W. Howe,

pers. commun.).

Densities

In Nebraska, total numbers of Burrowing Owls

increased, but density decreased with increasing size

of prairie dog towns (Desmond and Savidge 1996). In

large (>35 ha) prairie dog towns, distribution was

found to be less dense but clumped, and clumping

was not related to burrow availability (Desmond et

al. 1995). Burrowing Owl density in black-tailed

prairie dog colonies was negatively correlated with

the density of inactive burrows (Desmond 1991). The

density of Burrowing Owls in prairie dog colonies in

ne. Colorado was positively related to the

percentage of active burrows (Hughes 1993). At least

50% of the burrows were active in 26 of 27 occupied

colonies. For prairie dog colonies with over 90%

active burrows, mean density was 2.85 owls/ha, and

for those with 70-80% active burrows, mean density

was 0.57 owls/ha.

Changes in Breeding Season

Distribution

United States—The Burrowing Owl has been nearly

extirpated from all former breeding range in w.

Minnesota, most areas east of the Missouri River in

North Dakota, e. Nebraska and Oklahoma, e. and c.

Kansas, in large portions of the San Francisco Bay

area in California, and in the Rogue Valley in sw.

Oregon (DeSante et al. 1997, Martell et al. 2001,

Murphy et al. 2001, Sheffield and Howery 2001,

Wellicome and Holroyd 2001).

In California, the Burrowing Owl has been

extirpated as a breeding species during the last 10-15

years from approximately 8% of its former range (J.

Barclay, pers. commun.). They were apparently

extirpated as breeding birds during the past decade

from Sonoma, Marin, Santa Cruz, and Napa

counties, and only one breeding pair apparently still

existed in San Mateo County in 1991. The population

around the north end of San Francisco, San Pablo,

and Suisun Bays was also reduced to a very small

remnant. Breeding in central California has been

reduced to only three isolated populations: a

moderate but declining population of about 720 pairs

in the Central Valley; about 143 pairs in the lowlands

around the southern arm of San Francisco Bay

between Alameda and Redwood City; and a very

small, isolated population of about 10 pairs in the

Livermore area (DeSante et al. 1997).

In a comparison with historical distributions,

Murphy et al. (2001) found that Burrowing Owls

were greatly reduced or completely extirpated from

nw. and c. North Dakota. Declines in Burrowing

Owls may be related to loss of grassland habitat and

burrowing rodents in the state (Murphy et al. 2001).

Populations 17
Table 4. Burrowing Owl population estimates for states, provinces, and countries. James and Espie (1997)

surveyed state/provincial biologists in 1992 to determine approximate total breeding populations. Other

populations estimates are presented only for statewide/province-wide estimates; additional local population

estimates can be found in Appendix A: State Summaries of Burrowing Owl Status.

Area James and Espie (1997)a Other statewide/province-wide estimates (source)

United States 20,000–200,000

Arizona 100–1,000 None

California 1,000–10,000 9,266 pairs (1991–1993; DeSante et al., unpubl.)

Colorado 1,000–10,000 15,796–20,408 individuals (Hanni 2001)b

Idaho 1,000–10,000 None

Iowa <10 None

Kansas 100–1,000 1,000–10,000 pairs (W. Busby, pers. commun.)

Minnesota <10 None

Montana 100–1,000 644 + 114 pairs (Atkinson 2000)c

300 pairs (Holroyd and Wellicome 1997)

Nebraska 100–1,000 None

Nevada 1,000–10,000 None

New Mexico 1,000–10,000 None

North Dakota 100–1,000 None

Oklahoma 100–1,000 800–1,000 individuals (Sheffield and Howery 2001)

Oregon 1,000–10,000 None

South Dakota 100–1,000 None

Texas >10,000 None

Utah 1,000–10,000 None

Washington 100–1,000 None

Wyoming 1,000–10,000 None

Canada 2,000–20,000

Alberta 1,000–10,000 800 birds (in 1990; Wellicome 1997)

British Columbia <10 <10 pairs (Leupin and Low 2001)

Manitoba 10–100 10–20 pairs (K. De Smet, pers. commun.)

Saskatchewan 1,000–10,000 None

Mexico Unknown

a–numbers of breeding pairs

b–estimates are only for e. Colorado, which represents the majority of breeding habitat in the state.

c–estimate is based on surveys of known prairie dog colonies.

18 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
In w. Minnesota, Burrowing Owls were considered

common in the 1920’s; however, significant declines

had occurred by the 1960’s (Martell et al. 2001).

During 1965-1985 only 10 breeding records were

recorded. A reintroduction program was attempted

from 1986-1990; however no successful nesting has

been recorded since 1992.

Canada—The Burrowing Owl has been extirpated

from the northern portions of the range in

Saskatchewan and Alberta, and all former range in

Manitoba and British Columbia (Wellicome 1997,

Shyry et al. 2001, Wellicome and Holroyd 2001).

Extirpation from all of Canada may occur within a

few decades (Wellicome and Haug 1995).

Mexico—Unknown.

Re-occupancy Rates

Of 292 nest burrows that had been occupied in some

previous year (1976-83), 39.4% were re-occupied in

Idaho in some subsequent year (up to seven years

later) (Rich 1984). Burrows in rock outcrops were reused 48.9% of the time (n = 113) compared to 31.4%

(n = 159) for nests in soil mounds. Outcrop sites also

were used more often in consecutive years; 23 were

used for two years, and 12 were used for three

consecutive years. Fifteen mound nests were used

for two years, five were used for three years, and one

was used four consecutive years. Greater reuse of

outcrop sites could be related to their stability as no

burrows in outcrops were destroyed. However, nests

in old badger burrows were destroyed by plowing,

cattle trampling, drifting sand, dredging, and other

unknown causes (Rich 1984).

In Colorado, 90% of 18 prairie dog towns and 25% of

four nesting burrows were reused between 1990 and

1991 (Plumpton and Lutz 1993). In sc. Idaho in 1994-

95, 50% (n = 30) of individual burrows were reused

in a subsequent year (Belthoff and King 1997). Of 10

burrows that fledged young in 1994, 70% were

reused at least once. Conversely, burrows tended to

remain unoccupied in years following nest failures;

six nests remained unused in 1995 and 1996 after

failing in 1994 (Belthoff and King 1997). In sw. Idaho,

low nest reoccupancy was documented (11% from

1991 to 1994, and 42% from 1993 to 1994) (Lehman et

al. 1998).

Korfanta et al. (2001) estimated 17% reoccupancy

(range: 8-28%) of historic breeding sites in e.

Wyoming. The average age of sites reoccupied by

Burrowing Owls in 1998 (12.4 years; n = 10) was not

significantly different from the average age of all

historic observations (13.1 years, n = 86) (Korfanta

et al. 2001). In 1999 and 2000, the Rocky Mountain

Bird Observatory (RMBO) conducted extensive

roadside surveys of potential Burrowing Owl habitat

in se. Wyoming. In 1999, they located 71 colonies of

Burrowing Owls, totaling 180 individuals (Hutchings

et al. 1999). In 2000, they located 107 sites with

Burrowing Owls for a total of 575 owls; site

reoccupancy was 66% between 1999 and 2000 (T.

VerCauteren, pers. commun.).

Populations 19
Range-wide Surveys

There are no ongoing or standardized large-scale

monitoring programs that target Burrowing Owls in

the United States or Canada other than the BBS and

CBC. These surveys do not adequately sample this

species throughout its range (Sauer et al. 2002).

There are no range-wide monitoring programs in

Mexico.

Local Surveys

In Wyoming, Burrowing Owls are voluntarily

reported by state and federal biologists, researchers,

Audubon Society members, and the general public to

the Wyoming Game and Fish Departments (WGFD)

Wildlife Observation System (WOS) (Korfanta et al.

2001).

The New Mexico Burrowing Owl Working Group

(NMBOWG) has initiated a volunteer monitoring

system to collect data on Burrowing Owl populations

in the state (C. Finley, pers. commun.).

In e. Colorado, w. Nebraska, w. Kansas, and e.

Wyoming, RMBO conducts monitoring of prairie

birds, including Burrowing Owls. The objectives are

to investigate trends in population and distribution,

and to determine local densities of birds

(T. VerCauteren, pers. commun.).

Manitoba monitors Burrowing Owl populations

through its Threatened Grassland Birds Project

(Dundas and Jensen 1994/1995). Monitoring in

Saskatchewan and Alberta is conducted through

Operation Burrowing Owl (Dundas and Jensen

1994/1995).

Proposed Protocols and Surveys

In California, the California Burrowing Owl

Consortium has developed Survey Protocol and

Mitigation Guidelines to survey Burrowing Owl

populations and to evaluate impacts from

development projects. The following web site has

the survey protocol and mitigation guidelines

(http://www2.ucsc.edu/scpbrg/section1.htm).

In Wyoming, the Arizona Coop. Fish & Wildlife

Research Unit conducted standardized population

surveys for nesting Burrowing Owls on public lands.

The objectives of this project were to determine the

factors that influence burrow occupancy, nesting

productivity, burrow fidelity, natal recruitment,

conduct an annual survival in Wyoming, and to

provide a paired comparison between tape and

passive surveys in number of birds detected

(C. Conway, pers. commun.).

20 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

Monitoring Activities
Habitat: Breeding

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation—Primary threats

across the North American range of the Burrowing

Owl are habitat loss and fragmentation primarily

due to intensive agricultural and urban development,

and habitat degradation due to declines in

populations of colonial burrowing mammals (Grant

1965, Konrad and Gilmer 1984, Ratcliff 1986, Haug et

al. 1993, Dundas and Jensen 1994/95, RodriguezEstrella et al. 1998, Sheffield 1997a, Dechant et al.

1999). The dramatic reduction of prairie habitat in

the United States has been linked to reduction of

Burrowing Owl populations (Sheffield 1997a).

Fragmentation and isolation may be threats to small

and localized populations. Fragmentation of nesting

habitat may reduce the opportunity for unpaired

owls to find mates (Sheffield 1997a). Fragmentation

of grassland habitat in Canada has increased the

populations of predators that prey on Burrowing

Owls (Wellicome and Haug 1995). In contrast, in

w. Nebraska landscapes dominated by croplands,

Burrowing Owls had higher fledging success 

(mean of 3.23 fledglings/pair) than owls nesting in

rangeland landscapes (mean of 1.49 fledglings/pair)

(Desmond 1991). Larger home ranges have been

observed in fragmented landscapes (Warnock and

James 1997). Higher post-fledging mortality from

vehicle collisions occurred in an agricultural

landscape with >90% of land area under cultivation

compared to an unfragmented rangeland with <20%

cultivation (Clayton and Schmutz 1997).

Burrows—Elimination of burrowing rodents

through control programs has been identified as the

primary factor in the recent and historical decline of

Burrowing Owl populations (Butts and Lewis 1982;

Pezzolesi 1994; Desmond and Savidge 1996, 1998,

1999; Toombs 1997; Dechant et al. 1999; Desmond et

al. 2000; Murphy et al. 2001). Some black-tailed

prairie dog colonies have become so isolated through

fragmentation that re-population through natural

dispersal and colonization is difficult (Benedict et al.

1996). Declines of Burrowing Owl populations in

North Dakota north and east of the Missouri River

may be related to declines in Richardson’s ground

squirrel populations (Murphy et al 2001). In w.

Nebraska, a 63% decline in Burrowing Owl numbers

over a seven year period in 17 black-tailed prairie

dog colonies was associated with declines in blacktailed prairie dog densities due to population control

activities (Desmond et al. 2000). Burrow habitat in

abandoned prairie dog towns becomes unsuitable

for Burrowing Owls within one to three years

(Butts 1973).

Grazing—Burrowing Owls prefer grasslands

moderately or heavily grazed by cattle or prairie

dogs (James and Seabloom 1968, Butts 1973,

Wedgwood 1976, MacCracken et al. 1985, Bock et al.

1993). The response of Burrowing Owls to cattle

grazing is related to the effects of prairie dog

grazing and must be evaluated in conjunction with

the presence of previously excavated burrows. In sc.

Saskatchewan, heavily grazed, poor soils were used

frequently by Burrowing Owls, and moderate to

heavy grazing on good soils reduced lush vegetative

growth and provided suitable habitat (Wedgwood

1976). Burrowing Owls in Saskatchewan and Alberta

nested in pastures with shorter vegetation than

occurred in randomly chosen pastures, and

preferred native or tame pastures over cultivated

land (Clayton 1997). In the Oklahoma Panhandle,

Butts (1973) suggested that grazing of taller grasses

may attract ground squirrels and prairie dogs, thus

increasing burrow availability. In North Dakota,

Burrowing Owls nested in moderately or heavily

grazed mixed-grass pastures, but not in hayed or

lightly grazed mixed-grass (Kantrud 1981). Declines

in Burrowing Owl populations in North Dakota

north and east of the Missouri River may be due to a

reduction over the past 20 years in the amount of

sheep grazing that occurs in the region (Murphy et

al. 2001). In the Platte River Valley of Nebraska,

preferred nest sites were in heavily grazed or

mowed native grasslands (Faanes and Lingle 1995).

Optimal breeding habitat in portions of Colorado,

Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota,

and Wyoming occurred in heavily grazed areas with

aridic ustoll soils and grazed areas with typic boroll

soils (Kantrud and Kologiski 1982).

Burning—Little information exists on the

response of Burrowing Owls to burning. In nc.

Oregon, they were observed nesting in badger

excavations in areas that recently had been burned,

suggesting that fire may create suitable habitat by

reducing vegetation around potential nest sites

(Green and Anthony 1989). In nw. North Dakota,

post-European settlement fire suppression may be

responsible for the development of a taller, denser,

and woodier plant community than previously

existed (Murphy 1993), and these vegetational shifts

may have been responsible for the local extirpation

of Burrowing Owls.

21

Threats 
Mowing—In nc. Colorado, mowing has been used to

control growth of grasses and woody vegetation in

areas where black-tailed prairie dogs have been

eliminated. Abandoned black-tailed prairie dog

colonies that were not mowed were not used by owls

(Plumpton 1992). Mowing also may enhance the

attractiveness of nest sites for Burrowing Owls

returning from the wintering grounds (Plumpton

and Lutz 1993). Mowing throughout the breeding

season apparently does not adversely affect nesting

Burrowing Owls (Dechant et al. 1999).

Habitat: Winter

Threats to Burrowing Owl wintering habitats are

largely the same as those to Burrowing Owl

breeding habitats; however, documentation and

research addressing these threats is much more

limited for wintering habitats. VerCauteren et al. (In

review) reported poisoning of prairie dogs, urban

development, and agriculture as the primary threats

to prairie dogs and Burrowing Owl habitat in winter.

Approximately 50% of the prairie dog colonies

resurveyed by VerCauteren et al. (In review) were

extant, although many of the remaining towns were

greatly fragmented.

Overutilization for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes

Not known to be a threat. Burrowing Owls have

been trapped and sold in Mexico (G. Holroyd, pers.

commun.), although the extent of this practice is

unknown.

Predation and Disease 

Predation—Cultivation and fragmentation of

grassland habitat in Canada have allowed

populations of predators that prey on Burrowing

Owls to increase (Wellicome and Haug 1995).

Burrowing Owls are usually tolerant of human

activity but vulnerable to predation by dogs and

cats. In Minnesota, high predation rates played a

role in the failure of four years of reintroduction

efforts (Martell et al. 2001). On Santa Barbara

Island, California, a small population of Burrowing

Owls (approx. 20) were extirpated by Barn Owls in

1984 and again in 1987 following crashes in the deer

mouse population (Drost and McCluskey 1992).

Disease—Not known to be a direct threat (see

Indirect Effects of Disease, below).

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory

Mechanisms 

Burrowing Owls are protected by the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act (1918) in the United States and

Mexico, which makes it illegal to take, possess, 

buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird

listed in 50 C.F.R., Part 10. In the United States, the

Burrowing Owl was listed as an ESA Category 2

Candidate species until February 1996, when the

Category 2 designation was discontinued.

Burrowing Owls are listed as Endangered in 

Canada and as Threatened in Mexico.

Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Disturbance at Nest and Roost Sites—Not known

to be a threat.

Ingestion of Plastics, Lead, Etc.—Not known to be

a threat.

Collisions with Stationary/Moving Structures—

Little information. No Burrowing Owl mortality 

due to collisions with communication towers was

documented (Shire et al. 2000). Burrowing Owls 

may be susceptible to collisions with vehicles

because Burrowing Owls often fly low to the 

ground. Collisions with vehicles have been cited 

as a significant source of mortality by several

researchers (Haug et al. 1993). Military aircraft have

been involved with strikes to Burrowing Owls in e.

New Mexico (W. Howe, pers. commun.). Gillihan

(2000) documented a Burrowing Owl killed by a

collision with a barbed wire fence.

Shooting, Trapping, and Hunting—Illegal shooting

may be responsible for substantial mortality in some

areas, accounting for 10 of 15 deaths in Oklahoma

(Butts 1973). Other studies, however, have not

mentioned shooting as a source of mortality

(Coulombe 1971, Thomsen 1971, Martin 1973).

Population Size and Isolation—Johnson (1997)

reported that a population of Burrowing Owls in

California showed a higher genetic similarity than

did a collection of geographically separated

Burrowing Owl populations. This suggested that

some potentially detrimental inbreeding was

occurring in the population (Johnson 1997). However,

Korfanta (2001) found that populations of Burrowing

Owls were genetically indistinguishable, suggesting

a high degree of population connectivity and

dispersal among populations.

Introduced Species—Not known to be a threat.

Indirect Effects of Disease—Burrowing Owl

populations can be negatively impacted, and even

eliminated, by epizootics of sylvatic plague that

affect prairie dog colonies and thus reduce available

habitat for Burrowing Owls (Dechant et al. 1999).

22 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Pesticides and Other 

Contaminants/Toxics

Based on a survey of biologists, eleven states and

provinces reported pesticides as a potential factor in

declines (James and Espie 1997). Use of insecticides

and rodenticides in Burrowing Owl habitat can be

especially detrimental. Pesticides not only reduce

the food supply and the number of burrowing

mammals, but these chemicals also may be toxic to

Burrowing Owls (Ratcliff 1986, James and Fox 1987,

James et al. 1990, Baril 1993, PMRA 1995, Hjertaas

1997a, Sheffield 1997b). Burrowing Owls have been

reported to ingest poisoned rodents and to forage on

the ground for insects in areas with poison grains

also on the ground (Butts 1973, James et al. 1990). In

s. Saskatchewan, owls in pastures treated with

strychnine-coated grain weighed less than those in

control pastures, suggesting a sublethal effect or a

reduction in small-rodent prey (James et al. 1990). A

breeding population in the Oklahoma Panhandle

declined by 71% within one year after sodium

fluoroacetate (1080) was applied to the prairie dog

colony with nesting owls (Butts 1973). Burrows

occasionally are fumigated and sealed in the course

of rodent-control programs (Butts 1973). Anticoagulant rodenticides (e.g., brodifacoum and other

second generation [or super-warfarin] compounds)

and other types of rodenticides (e.g., strychnine)

have been shown to cause mortality in many

different owl species, with the ingestion of as few as

one poisoned prey item (Sheffield 1997b). Burrowing

Owls located in proximity to strychnine-coated grain

used to control Richardson’s ground squirrels were

found to have significantly decreased adult body

mass and slightly decreased breeding success as

compared to control owls (James et al. 1990).

Burrowing Owls are known to scavenge dead

rodents and other prey items on occasion, making

them highly susceptible to secondary poisoning by

insecticides and rodenticides (Sheffield 1997b).

There have been few studies examining exposure

and effects of insecticides on Burrowing Owls;

however, available evidence indicates that anticholinesterase insecticides can negatively impact

Burrowing Owl populations (Sheffield 1997a, b). In

Saskatchewan, reproductive output of Burrowing

Owls was not diminished significantly by one or

more exposures to carbaryl within 50 or 400 m of the

nest burrow; however, spraying of carbofuran within

50 m of the nest burrow caused a 54% reduction in

the number of young per nest (James and Fox 1987).

When both carbaryl and carbofuran were sprayed

within 400 m of the nest, productivity of pairs

decreased about 35% more than when carbaryl alone

was applied. Direct overspray of carbofuran to the

nest burrow resulted in an 83% reduction in brood

size and an 82% reduction in nesting success (James

and Fox 1987, Fox et al. 1989). Carbofuran

application within 50 m of the nest burrow, without

direct overspray, resulted in a 17% reduction in

brood size and a 27% reduction in nesting success

compared with burrows exposed to carbaryl or

chloropyrifos. Use of granular formulations of

carbofuran is restricted in the United States and

Canada (PMRA 1995; L. Cole and P. Mineau, pers.

commun.), as is most of its liquid formulations in

Canada (PMRA 1995). Liquid carbofuran is still

registered for several uses in the United States, and

of particular danger to the Burrowing Owls are uses

of this chemical in corn and alfalfa fields (Dechant et

al. 1999).

Burrowing owl populations in California were

sampled for contaminants in the spring of 1996 in the

San Joaquin Valley (Lemoore Naval Air Station

[NAS]), the Imperial Valley (Sonny Bono Salton Sea

National Wildlife Refuge [Salton Sea NWR]), and

Carrizo Plain Natural Area (Gervais et al. 2000).

Sites were representative of the general agricultural

practices in the region; the Carrizo Plain site was a

large native grassland. Eggs, blood, feather, and

footwash samples were collected from Lemoore

NAS and Carrizo Plain, and eggs were collected

from Salton Sea NWR. Eggshells from 45 owl nests

collected prior to 1937 were obtained from the

Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology and

measured. Eggshell thickness declined 20.58% from

Burrowing Owl eggs collected prior to 1937

compared to those collected in 1996. In addition, the

eggs from Lemoore NAS were significantly thinner

than those from the Salton Sea NWR or Carrizo

Plain and contained high concentrations of DDE,

ranging from 1.5 to 33 ppm wet weight. Carrizo Plain

and Salton Sea NWR eggs contained up to 0.38 and

3.4 ppm DDE, respectively. Feathers from owls

nesting at Lemoore NAS also contained levels of

DDE, suggesting recent and local exposure. Two

Lemoore eggs also contained PCB. Selenium

concentrations in eggs were at low concentrations

typical of uncontaminated eggs. Footwash samples

indicated exposure to the organophosphorus

pesticide chlorpyrifos at Lemoore NAS, although no

exposure was reported within 1 km of the Burrowing

Owl burrows in the months prior to sampling

(Gervais et al. 2000). Despite the fact that DDT was

banned in 1972, its degradation product DDE clearly

remains a threat to wildlife within the San Joaquin

Valley. Contaminant loads in these owls also may

make them more susceptible to other unrelated

stresses, such as weather or exposure to other

toxicants (e.g., dicofol), that have similar estrogenic

effects as well as thinning effects on eggshells

(Gervais et al. 2000).

Threats 23
Data for Western Burrowing Owls in most of the

U.S. are insufficient to estimate trends in

abundance. Limited data suggest that they are

decreasing in some areas, but may be stable or

increasing in others. Overall, BBS data (which are

reasonably reliable when sample size is adequate)

suggest a long-term decline (-1.5%/yr for the U.S.),

but this estimate is not statistically significant; the

95% confidence interval for the trend estimate is

between –6.5%/yr and +3.6%/yr. Western

Burrowing Owls have experienced significant

population declines at the northern, western, and

eastern fringes of their range, including some local

extirpations; however, they continue to occupy the

majority of their historical range. Primary threats

are habitat loss due to anthropogenic activities,

reductions in abundances of burrowing mammals,

and contaminants.

Currently, the Western Burrowing Owl is listed by

the USFWS as a Bird of Conservation Concern-2002

in most of the BCR’s in which it occurs, in every

USFWS Region where it occurs, and on the National

list (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2002). This

designation is intended to stimulate collaborative,

proactive conservation actions among public and

private land managers and others. Recommended

conservation measures include efforts to monitor

their demographics and trends more precisely, and

to understand the factors affecting their populations

during migration and winter. Conservation efforts

should focus on protection of suitable habitats in

desert, grassland, and shrub-steppe environments.

Additional conservation efforts should focus on

determining the status of Burrowing Owls in Mexico

and on reversing the declines and local extirpations

in the Great Plains and Canada. The conservation of

burrowing mammals is essential to improve the

status of Burrowing Owls, and the listing of the

black-tailed prairie dog as a Candidate species

should assist in the conservation of both species.

The Migratory Bird Management program of the

USFWS recommends retaining the Western

Burrowing Owl on the BCC lists on which it

currently appears. The listing of the Burrowing Owl

as a Bird of Conservation Concern highlights its

potential vulnerability and need for increased

monitoring and conservation attention by multiple

Federal and State agencies and private

organizations. The success of these efforts will be

reviewed as the Birds of Conservation Concern list

is revised.

24 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

Recommendation on 

Current Conservation Status
Habitat

Habitat Features—Large, contiguous areas of

treeless, native grasslands should be maintained

(Warnock 1997, Warnock and James 1997, Clayton

and Schmutz 1999). However, because Burrowing

Owls forage over tall grass and nest and roost in

short grass, a mosaic of grassland habitats are

important and a patchwork of reserves with

sustainable land uses in nesting and buffer areas is

recommended (Clayton and Schmutz 1999).

Standardized mitigation protocols to minimize

impacts from developments and disturbances should

be developed (Holroyd et al. 2001). Government

programs and policies that impact Burrowing Owl

habitat should be reviewed to ensure that land-use

changes have positive effects on Burrowing Owl

populations and habitats. Furthermore,

management plans for public lands should include

issues relative to the conservation of Burrowing

Owls, fossorial mammals, and their associated

habitats (Holroyd et al. 2001).

The following management recommendations are

from the Columbia Basin in Oregon (Green and

Anthony 1997): (1) Provide elevated perches near

potential nest burrows in grassland areas if the

average vegetation height is 5-15 cm; (2) Provide

fresh cattle dung near nesting areas if dung is not

available and mammalian predators, especially

badgers, occur in the area. Burrowing Owls use

shredded manure to line their nests and burrow

entrances, possibly to mask nest odors as a

predator-avoidance strategy (Haug et al. 1993,

Dechant et al. 1999). In nc. Oregon, 72% of 32

successful nests were lined with manure, whereas

only 13% (n = 15) of depredated nests were lined

with manure; (3) Place artificial nest boxes no closer

together than 110 m; (4) Construct boxes with width

and length dimensions of at least 36 cm and place

soil around the inside wall; or construct boxes with

only three walls, with a funnel-shaped tunnel

entrance; and (5) Select sites for establishing or

increasing nest sites that have approximately 55%

(40-70%) bare ground and average shrub coverage of

<15%.

Fire—Fire may create suitable habitat by reducing

vegetation around potential nest sites (Green and

Anthony 1989). Post-settlement fire suppression may

be responsible for the development of a taller,

denser, and woodier plant community than

previously existed in North Dakota (Murphy 1993).

Mowing—To encourage Burrowing Owl use in areas

where black-tailed prairie dogs and other grazers

have been eliminated, mowing may be used to

control growth of grasses and woody vegetation.

Abandoned black-tailed prairie dog colonies that

were not mowed were not used by owls (Plumpton

1992). Mowing also may enhance the attractiveness

of nest sites for Burrowing Owls returning from the

wintering grounds (Plumpton and Lutz 1993).

Mowing throughout the breeding season in mid- to

late summer apparently does not adversely affect

nesting Burrowing Owls (T. Wellicome, pers.

commun.). Mowing can maintain abandoned prairie

dog colonies at an early successional stage, with

short (<8 cm) vegetation (Plumpton 1992, Plumpton

and Lutz 1993). Mowing abandoned colonies may be

effective in the short term; however, burrows may

require maintenance by prairie dogs to remain

suitable for Burrowing Owls (MacCracken et al.

1985, Desmond and Savidge 1999).

Grazing—Livestock grazing may be used to

maintain abandoned prairie dog colonies where

native burrowing mammals have been eliminated.

Heavy grazing on saline, gravelly, stony, or sandy

areas and moderate to intense grazing on fertile soils

could create suitable habitat that otherwise would

support tall vegetation (Wedgwood 1976). However,

the effect of grazing on Burrowing Owl habitat and

populations is unknown.

Burrowing Mammals

Conservation of those species of burrowing

mammals that form Burrowing Owl nest sites is

essential for maintaining populations of Burrowing

Owls. Some populations of black-tailed prairie dogs

are in danger of local extirpation, and their colonies

may have become so isolated that re-population

through natural dispersal and colonization is

unlikely (Benedict et al. 1996). Fragmentation and

isolation of habitat patches are potentially important

factors in the decline of black-tailed prairie dog

populations (Dechant et al. 1999). Burrows may

require maintenance by prairie dogs in order to

ensure their long-term suitability for owls and it

may be necessary to release prairie dogs into

inactive colonies (MacCracken et al. 1985, Desmond

et al. 2000). Holroyd et al. (2001) suggested the

expansion of prairie dog colonies on public lands, and

the development of economic incentives to make it

profitable to maintain prairie dog populations on

private lands.

25

Management and 

Conservation
Regulation of poisoning and shooting of prairie dogs,

particularly on public lands, may be necessary

(Benedict et al. 1996, Toombs 1997). If lethal control

of burrowing mammals is necessary, restricting the

timing of control activities to avoid the period when

Burrowing Owls choose nest sites or are nesting is

recommended (Butts 1973). Traps, poisoned meat, or

poisoned grain should not be used for rodent control,

but rather burrows unoccupied by owls should be

fumigated (Butts 1973, Thomson 1988). However,

fumigation may have negative impacts on other

burrow dependent species. The area of prairie dog

colonies should be increased, possibly by

reintroducing prairie dogs where they have been

eliminated or by releasing additional prairie dogs

into active colonies to promote colony expansion

(Pezzolesi 1994, Toombs 1997). It is particularly

important to protect colonies ≥ 35 ha in area, which

provide adequate space for nesting Burrowing Owls

(Desmond et al. 1995, Dechant et al. 1999).

Reintroduction and Relocation

Reintroduction—Reintroduction programs have

been attempted in British Columbia, Manitoba,

Minnesota, and Oklahoma with no success. In

British Columbia, an ongoing captive breeding

program reared and released over 140 Burrowing

Owls between 1992 and 1998. Released birds have

raised broods, overwintered at release sites, and

migrated south in winter, but few have returned to

the release site in spring (Leupin and Low 2001,

Munro et al. 1984). In Manitoba, reintroductions

between 1986 and 1996 used a variety of methods,

including the aid of aviaries and artificial burrows,

but resulted in low reproduction and poor return

rates and reintroductions were discontinued

(De Smet 1997). In Minnesota, 105 juveniles were

released in a reintroduction program over four

years, but no successful breeding occurred and the

program was discontinued (Haug et al. 1993, Martell

et al. 2001). Holroyd et al. (2001) recommended a

review of Burrowing Owl reintroduction techniques

and development of new techniques due to failure of

previously used methods.

Relocations and Artificial Burrows—Relocations

are those in which Burrowing Owls are evicted from

their occupied burrows and artificial burrows are

constructed as near to the eviction burrows as

possible to provide acceptable unoccupied burrows

for their use. Ninety percent (n = 6) of artificial

burrows in California were immediately occupied

and these burrows supported successfully breeding

birds for three consecutive years (Trulio 1995).

Artificial burrows were used when they were

approximately 50-100 m from the burrow (Thomsen

1971, Haug and Oliphant 1990). Artificial burrows

more than 100 m from the eviction burrow may

greatly reduce the chances that new burrows will be

used.

The rates of survival and reproduction of Burrowing

Owls relocated to artificial burrows as well as the

long-term use of artificial burrows and the ability of

these burrows to maintain populations are unknown.

The design and installation of artificial nest burrows

should be summarized and the conservation value of

this practice determined (Holroyd et al. 2001).

Follow-up research needs to be conducted to

determine the breeding success of relocated

Burrowing Owls (Holroyd et al. 2001).

Pesticide Use

If insect control is necessary, insecticides with the

lowest toxicity to nontarget organisms should be

used (James and Fox 1987, Fox et al. 1989). Municipal

governments and agricultural representatives

should be encouraged to reduce or restrict the use of

pesticides, and to use pesticides of low toxicity to

nontarget species (Thomson 1988). Pesticides should

not be sprayed within 400-600 m of Burrowing Owl

nest burrows during the breeding season (Haug

1985, Haug and Oliphant 1990, James and Fox 1987).

The possible negative effects of pesticides on

Burrowing Owl populations should be considered on

breeding and wintering grounds (Holroyd et al.

2001).

Monitoring

A standardized, range-wide survey for Burrowing

Owls should be developed and implemented.

Potential survey protocols should be tested to ensure

the quantitative validity of the methodology

(Holroyd et al. 2001). Most current monitoring

programs have problems due to limited coverage or

sample size (see Monitoring Activities, above). A

standardized range-wide roadside survey using call

playback has been recommended. This method was

80% effective at detecting Burrowing Owls using a

15 minute period (five minutes listening, five minutes

call playback, five minutes listening periods), in early

morning and in the early breeding season (Duxbury

and Holroyd 1998). The use of recorded calls can

significantly increase Burrowing Owl detections,

particularly males (Haug and Didiuk 1993). Both

historical sites and areas previously unoccupied by

owls should be monitored. Because of low nest

reoccupancy rates for Burrowing Owls, long-term

monitoring of abundance should not be based solely

on surveys of historical breeding sites (Lehman et

al. 1998).

26 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Migration 

Little information is available. Research projects

conducted by Saskatchewan Environment and

Resource Management and the Canadian Wildlife

Service have attempted to relocate radiotransmittered Burrowing Owl on their wintering

grounds. Burrowing Owls marked during the

breeding season in Canada (Saskatchewan and

Alberta) have been relocated in s. Texas and c.

Mexico (Veracruz and Michoacan states). Tagged

Burrowing Owls were capable of migrating 200 km

per night, taking at least 2-3 weeks to move from

breeding to wintering grounds. It is estimated that

Burrowing Owls take 6-8 weeks to move from

wintering to breeding grounds

(http://www.serm.gov.sk.ca/ecosystem/speciesatrisk/

burrowingowl.htm, http://members.aol.com/

joemoell/owl2.html, G. Holroyd, pers. commun.).

Wintering Areas 

Very little information is available. Although the

general wintering range of Burrowing Owls is

known, very little is known about habitats used

during the winter (Holroyd et al. 2001). Conservation

of Burrowing Owls may depend on acquiring

knowledge about the wintering areas and about

movement patterns, timing, and ecology during

migration and winter. Very few studies have been

carried out in Mexico, Central America, or South

America. The rapid population decline in Canadian

provinces, despite apparent availability of suitable

habitat, suggests unknown factors in winter and

migration may be affecting survival or return rates

(Schmutz 1997).

Education

Private landowners and the general public should be

educated about the status of Burrowing Owls, the

benefits of protecting habitat for the species and for

burrowing mammals, and the negative effects of

insecticides (Butts 1973, James and Fox 1987,

Thomson 1988, Hjertaas 1993, Dechant et al. 1999,

Holroyd et al. 2001). Stewardship of Burrowing Owls

and their habitat should be encouraged on public

land in the United States, Canada, and Mexico

(Holroyd et al. 2001). An educational program should

be developed for schools and outdoor education

programs, and the media should be included in these

activities (Thomson 1988, Holroyd et al. 2001). A

project to improve the public image of prairie dogs

should be undertaken (Benedict et al. 1996, Holroyd

et al. 2001). Operation Burrowing Owl (a private

stewardship program in Canada) has been

extremely successful at obtaining landowner

cooperation in conservation efforts, and has

provided valuable population trend data for

Burrowing Owls in Canada (Hjertaas 1997b). RMBO

and Hawks Aloft, Inc. have also developed successful

education and public participation programs.

Current Activities and Programs

United States—In California, the Burrowing Owl

Consortium, an ad hoc group of biologists and

advocates, meets two times a year. The Consortium

members inform each other and the public of

important issues related to the species, and

subcommittees of the Consortium undertake

projects designed to help the species (L. Trulio, pers.

commun.). The California Burrowing Owl

Consortium prepared the Burrowing Owl Survey

Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines in 1993 to

provide more consistent treatment of impacts to

Burrowing Owls during development projects. This

document was submitted to the California

Department of Fish and Game and became the basis

of their 1995 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl

Mitigation (California Department of Fish and

Game, unpubl. report).

RMBO manages “Prairie Partners”, a program that

requests voluntary cooperation from private

landowners to conserve shortgrass prairie birds and

their habitat through effective stewardship

(Hutchings et al. 1999). In 1999, “Prairie Partners”

documented 468 Burrowing Owl locations (79.3% on

public land). Information is provided to landowners

about shortgrass prairie conservation and

Burrowing Owl natural history. The program also

provides information about landowner attitudes

toward Burrowing Owls and prairie dogs.

RMBO also published “Sharing Your Land with

Shortgrass Prairie Birds” (Gillihan et al. 2001) which

includes a section on Burrowing Owl identification,

natural history, and habitat requirements and a

booklet focusing on grasslands and grassland birds

for elementary and secondary classroom use

(Hutchings et al. 1999). These materials are being

distributed to landowners, managers, and schools.

The New Mexico Burrowing Owl Working Group

(NMBOWG) was formed in response to population

declines at some sites in New Mexico (Hawks Aloft,

Inc. 2002). The NMBOWG is an volunteer,

collaborative effort of non-profit organizations,

government agencies, private enterprises and

individuals. The working group attempts to

encourage communication, support research, and

facilitate improved Burrowing Owl sighting accuracy

and reporting. The NMBOWG currently supports

on-going research projects at four sites: Holloman

and Kirtland Air Force Bases, New Mexico State

University, and the Turner Ranch. The NMBOWG

has initiated a volunteer monitoring system to

collect data on Burrowing Owl populations in the

state (C. Finley, pers. commun., Hawks Aloft, Inc.

2002).

Management and Conservation 27
Canada—Operation Burrowing Owl is a program

designed to address declines of Burrowing Owls in

Saskatchewan and Alberta. Activities include

increasing public awareness, placing nest boxes,

encouraging voluntary land protection, and

providing monetary incentives to landowners to

protect nesting habitat and avoid pesticide use

around nest sites (Hjertaas 1997b). As of 1993,

several hundred landowners were enrolled in the

project and were protecting over 20,000 ha of

breeding habitat, which supported several hundred

breeding pairs (Dundas and Jensen 1994/95).

Through the Critical Wildlife Habitat Program,

Threatened Grassland Birds Project in Manitoba,

nearly 3,500 ha of critical habitat have been leased or

voluntarily protected for Burrowing Owls and other

grassland species, and over 300 artificial nest

burrows have been installed (Dundas and Jensen

1994/95).

The Canadian Burrowing Owl Recovery Team was

formed in 1989 to coordinate and promote research

and conservation activities to prevent the decline of

this species in Canada. This team meets annually to

review information and to develop and implement

recovery plans. The British Columbia recovery team

has attempted to reintroduce Burrowing Owls into

that province for over a decade. In Alberta, a

provincial recovery team was formed in 2001 to

develop and implement a provincial action plan.

Several organizations conduct public education

programs to increase awareness of Burrowing Owl

conservation issues. The Saskatchewan Burrowing

Owl Interpretive Centre in Moose Jaw was

specifically established to promote awareness of

Burrowing Owl conservation both to visitors and

through extensive school extension programs. The

Alberta Fish and Game Association through their

Operation Grassland Community delivers similar

programs in the province. The Canadian Species at

Risk Habitat Stewardship Program funds nongovernment partners to deliver habitat stewardship

projects in all four western provinces which benefit

Burrowing Owls, their habitats and other prairie

wildlife. (G. Holroyd, pers. commun.).

28 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Coordinated, range-wide research on population

demographics needs to be conducted to determine

causes of populations declines (Holroyd and

Wellicome 1997, Holroyd et al. 2001). Metapopulation

dynamics, influence of landscape patterns, and the

effects of fragmentation and isolation on populations

are not well understood. Basic distribution data and

factors affecting survival during migration and on

wintering grounds are poorly known and may be

important in determining causes of population

declines (Holroyd et al. 2001). A standardized survey

to monitor population trends in Canada, the U.S.,

and Mexico is recommended as many population

estimates are simply based on “best guesses” and

current large-scale monitoring programs are largely

inadequate (Holroyd et al. 2001).

Management strategies currently in use need to be

evaluated for their effectiveness and the resulting

information made easily available to managers.

Further investigations also are needed on land use

impacts, prescribed fire, grazing, mowing, habitat

enhancements (e.g., artificial burrows and perches),

relocation and reintroduction, and impact of

predators on nest success (Millsap et al. 1997,

Sheffield 1997a, Holroyd et al. 2001). Rates of habitat

conversion and degradation (e.g., agricultural

conversion or decline in burrowing mammal

colonies) are rarely reported and more work is

needed to determine rate and extent of habitat loss

(James and Espie 1997). Modeling of Burrowing Owl

habitat selection has been suggested to better

understand the role of anthropogenic factors in

population declines (Holroyd et al. 2001).

Although some research exists on carbofuran,

studies of many other pesticides are also needed

(James and Espie 1997, Holroyd et al. 2001). Indirect

and sublethal effects of pesticides are largely

unknown. The extent of mortality and vulnerability

to shooting, particularly during prairie dog and

ground squirrel control, is generally unknown.

Some education programs have already been

successfully developed and implemented. However,

additional research is needed to determine

landowner and land manager attitudes to Burrowing

Owls and burrowing mammals and to determine

best methods for improving attitudes and

conservation efforts on private and public lands.

29

Research Needs
An extensive bibliography of articles pertaining

to the Burrowing Owl was compiled by L. Ayers.

The bibliography is available on the internet at the

following address: http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/

fish_wild/buow/citations.html

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list of

North American Birds. Seventh Edition.

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC.

Arrowood, P. C., C. A. Finley, and B. C. Thompson.

2001. Analyses of Burrowing Owl populations in

New Mexico. Journal of Raptor Research 35:362-

370.

Baril, A. 1993. Pesticides and wildlife in the prairies:

current regulatory issues. Pages 44-48 in G. L.

Holroyd, H. L. Dickson, M. Regnier, and H. C.

Smith, editors. Proceedings of the third

endangered species and prairie conservation

workshop. Natural History Occasional Paper 19.

Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton,

Alberta, Canada.

Belthoff, J. R. and B. A. King. 1997. Between-year

movements and nest burrow use by Burrowing

Owls in southwestern Idaho. Technical Bulletin

No. 97-3, Idaho Bureau of Land Management.

Benedict, R. A., P. W. Freeman, and H. H. Genoways.

1996. Prairie legacies—mammals. Pages 149-167

in F. B. Samson and F. L. Knopf, editors. Prairie

conservation: preserving North America’s most

endangered ecosystem. Island Press, Covelo,

California.

Bock, C. E., V. A. Saab, T. D. Rich, and D. S. Dobkin.

1993. Effects of livestock grazing on Neotropical

migratory landbirds in western North America.

Pages 296-309 in D. M. Finch and P. W. Stangel,

editors. Status and management of Neotropical

migratory birds. U.S.D.A. Forest Service,

General Technical Report RM-229.

Botelho, E. S., and P. C. Arrowood. 1996. Nesting

success of western Burrowing Owls in natural and

human-altered environments. Pages 61-68 in D.

Bird, D. Varland, and J. Negro, editors. Raptors

in human landscapes: Adaptation to Built and

Cultivated Environments. Academic Press, Inc.

Brown, N. L. 2001. The howdy owls of Arizona: a

review of the status of Athene cunicularia.

Journal of Raptor Research 35:344-350.

Butts, K. O. 1973. Life history and habitat

requirements of Burrowing Owls in western

Oklahoma. M.S. Thesis. Oklahoma State

University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.

Butts, K. O., and J. C. Lewis. 1982. The importance

of prairie dog towns to Burrowing Owls in

Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma

Academy of Science 62:46-52.

Clark, R. J., J. L. Lincer, and J. S. Clark. 1997.

Appendix A: a bibliography on the Burrowing

Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). Pages 145-170 in J.

Lincer and K. Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing

Owl, its biology and management including the

proceedings of the First International Burrowing

Owl Symposium. Raptor Research Report

Number 9.

Clayton, K. M. 1997. Post-fledging ecology of

Burrowing Owls in Alberta and Saskatchewan:

dispersal, survival, habitat use, and diet. M.S.

Thesis. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon,

Saskatchewan, Canada.

Clayton, K. M., and J. F. Schmutz. 1997. Burrowing

Owl (Speotyto cunicularia) survival in prairie

Canada. Pages 107-110 in J. R. Duncan, D. H.

Johnson, and T. H. Nicholls, editors. Biology and

conservation of owls of the Northern

Hemisphere. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, General

Technical Report NC-190. North Central Forest

Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Clayton, K. M., and J. K. Schmutz. 1999. Is the

decline of Burrowing Owls Speotyto cunicularia

in prairie Canada linked to changes in Great

Plains ecosystems? Bird Conservation

International 9:163-185.

Coulombe, H. N. 1971. Behavior and population

ecology of the Burrowing Owl, Speotyto

cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California.

Condor 73:162-176.

30 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

Literature Cited 
De Smet, K. D. 1997. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto

cunicularia) monitoring and management

activities in Manitoba, 1987-1996. Pages 123-130 in

J. R. Duncan, D. H. Johnson, and T. H. Nicholls,

editors. Biology and conservation of owls of the

Northern Hemisphere: Second International

Symposium. U.S.D.A., Forest Service General

Technical Report NC-190, North Central Forest

Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D.

Igl, C. M. Goldade, P. A. Rabie, and B. R. Euliss.

1999. Effects of management practices on

grassland birds: Burrowing Owl. Northern

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown,

North Dakota. Northern Prairie Wildlife

Research Center Home Page.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/

grasbird/buow/buow.htm

DeSante, D.F. and E. Ruhlen. 1995. A census of

Burrowing Owls in California, 1991-1993. Institute

for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station,

California.

DeSante, D. F., E. D. Ruhlen, S. L. Adamany, K. M.

Butron, and S. Amin. 1997. A census of Burrowing

Owls in central California in 1991. Pages 38-48 in

J. Lincer and K. Steenhof, editors. The

Burrowing Owl, its biology and management

including the proceedings of the First

International Burrowing Owl Symposium. Raptor

Research Report Number 9.

Desmond, M. J. 1991. Ecological aspects of

Burrowing Owl nesting strategies in the

Nebraska panhandle. M.S. Thesis. University of

Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Desmond, M. J., and J. A. Savidge. 1996. Factors

influencing Burrowing Owl (Speotyto

cunicularia) nest densities and numbers in

western Nebraska. American Midland Naturalist

136:143-148.

Desmond, M. J., and J. A. Savidge. 1998. Burrowing

Owl conservation in the Great Plains. Page 9 in

Abstracts of the Second International Burrowing

Owl Symposium, Ogden, Utah.

Desmond, M. J., and J. A. Savidge. 1999. Satellite

burrow use by Burrowing Owl chicks and its

influence on nest fate. In P. D. Vickery and J. R.

Herkert, editors. Ecology and conservation of

grassland birds in the western hemisphere.

Studies in Avian Biology 19.

Desmond, M. J., J. A. Savidge, and K. M. Eskridge.

2000. Correlations between Burrowing Owl and

black-tailed prairie dog declines: a 7-year

analysis. Journal of Wildlife Management

64:1067-1075.

Desmond, M. J., J. A. Savidge, and T. F. Seibert.

1995. Spatial patterns of Burrowing Owl

(Speotyto cunicularia) nests within black-tailed

prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) towns.

Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:1375-1379.

Drost, C. A., and R. C. McCluskey. 1992. Extirpation

of alternative prey during a small rodent crash.

Oecologia 92:301-304.

Dundas, H., and J. Jensen. 1994/95. Burrowing Owl

status and conservation. Bird Trends 4:21-22.

Duxbury, J. M., and G. L. Holroyd. 1998. Testing a

possible standardized, road-side survey technique

for Burrowing Owls. Abstract and notes. Second

International Burrowing Owl Symposium, Ogden,

Utah.

Enriquez-Rocha, P. L. 1997. Seasonal Records of the

Burrowing Owl in Mexico. 1997. Pages 49-51 in J.

Lincer and K. Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing

Owl, its biology and management including the

Proceedings of the First International Burrowing

Owl Symposium. Raptor Research Report

Number 9.

Faanes, C. A., and G. R. Lingle. 1995. Breeding birds

of the Platte River Valley of Nebraska. Northern

Prairie Wildlife Research Center home page,

Jamestown, North Dakota.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/birds/

platte/platte.htm (Version 16JUL97).

Fox, G. A., P. Mineau, B. Collins, and P. C. James.

1989. The impact of the insecticide carbofuran

(Furadan 480F) on the Burrowing Owl in Canada.

Technical Report Series No. 72. Canadian Wildlife

Service, Ottawa, Canada.

Gervais J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, D. M. Fry, L. J.

Trulio, and K. K. Sturm. 2000. Burrowing owls

and agricultural pesticides: evaluation of residues

and risks for three populations in California,

USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

19:337-343.

Gillihan, S. W. 2000. Barbed wire fence fatal to

Burrowing Owl. Journal of the Colorado Field

Ornithologists 34:220-221.

Gillihan, S. W., D. J. Hanni, S. W. Hutchings, T.

Toombs, and T. VerCauteren. 2001. Sharing your

land with shortgrass prairie birds. Unpublished

Report. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory,

Brighton, Colorado.

Gleason, R. S. 1978. Aspects of the breeding biology

of Burrowing Owls in southeastern Idaho. M.S.

Thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Gleason, R. S., and D. R. Johnson. 1985. Factors

influencing nesting success of Burrowing Owls 

in southeastern Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist

45:81-84.

Literature Cited 31
Grant, R. A. 1965. The Burrowing Owl in Minnesota.

Loon 37:2-17.

Green, G. A., and R. G. Anthony. 1989. Nesting

success and habitat relationships of Burrowing

Owls in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. Condor

91:347-354.

Green, G. A., and R. G. Anthony. 1997. Ecological

considerations for management of breeding

Burrowing Owls in the Columbia Basin. Pages

117-121 in J. Lincer and K. Steenhof, editors. The

Burrowing Owl, its biology and management

including the Proceedings of the First

International Symposium. Raptor Research

Report Number 9.

Hall, D. B., P. D. Greger, and A. V. Housewright. In

review. Burrowing owl ecology on the Nevada

Test Sites. DOE/NV/11718–701. U.D. Department

of Energy, National Nuclear Security

Administration Nevada Operations Office, Las

Vegas, Nevada.

Hanni, D. J. 2001. Comparison of four methodologies

used to monitor shortgrass prairie birds in

eastern Colorado. Unpublished Report. Rocky

Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, Colorado.

Haug, E. A. 1985. Observations on the breeding

ecology of Burrowing Owls in Saskatchewan. M.S.

Thesis. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon,

Saskatchewan.

Haug, E. A., and A. B. Didiuk. 1991. Updated status

report on the Burrowing Owl, Athene cunicularia

hypugaea, in Canada. Committee on the Status of

Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

Haug, E. A., and A. B. Didiuk. 1993. Use of recorded

calls to detect Burrowing Owls. Journal of Field

Ornithology 64:188-194.

Haug, E. A., and L. W. Oliphant. 1990. Movements,

activity patterns, and habitat use of Burrowing

Owls in Saskatchewan. Journal of Wildlife

Management 54:27-35.

Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993.

Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In A.

Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North

America, No. 61. The Academy of Natural

Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; The

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC.

Hawks Aloft, Inc. 2002. New Mexico Burrowing Owl

Working Group web page.

http://www.hawksaloft.org/burrowingowl.html.

Hjertaas, D. 1993. The Burrowing Owl recovery

program. Pages 350-352 in G. L. Holroyd, H. L.

Dickson, M. Regnier, and H. C. Smith, editors.

Proceedings of the Third Endangered Species

and Prairie Conservation Workshop. Natural

History Occasional Paper 19. Provincial Museum

of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Hjertaas, D. G. 1997a. Recovery plan for the

Burrowing Owl in Canada. Pages 107-111 in J.

Lincer and K. Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing

Owl, its biology and management including the

Proceedings of the First International Burrowing

Owl Symposium. Raptor Research Report

Number 9.

Hjertaas, D. G. 1997b. Operation Burrowing Owl in

Saskatchewan. Pages 112-116 in J. L. Lincer and

K. Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, its

biology and management including the

Proceedings of the First International Burrowing

Owl Symposium. Raptor Research Report

Number 9.

Hjertaas, D., S. Brechtel, K. De Smet, O. Dyer, E.

Haug, G. Holroyd, P. James, and J. Schmutz. 1995.

National recovery plan for the Burrowing Owl.

Report No. 13. Recovery of Nationally

Endangered Wildlife Committee. Ottawa,

Canada.

Holroyd., G. L., and T. I. Wellicome. 1997. Report on

the Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia)

conservation workshop. Pages 612-615 in J. R.

Duncan, D. H. Johnson, and T. H. Nicholls,

editors. Biology and conservation of owls of the

Northern Hemisphere. U.S.D.A. Forest Service,

General Technical Report NC-190. North Central

Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Holroyd, G. L., R. Rodriguez-Estrella, and S. R.

Sheffield. 2001. Conservation of the Burrowing

Owl in western North American: issues,

challenges, and recommendations. Journal of

Raptor Research 35:399-407.

Hughes, A. J. 1993. Breeding density and habitat

preference of the Burrowing Owl in northeastern

Colorado. M.S. Thesis. Colorado State University,

Fort Collins, Colorado.

Hutchings, S., M. Carter, E. Atkinson, T.

VerCauteren, C. Finley, S. Gillihan, and J.

Nocedal. 1999. Prairie Partners: promoting

stewardship of shortgrass prairie. Unpublished

Report, Colorado Bird Observatory, Brighton,

Colorado.

Illinois Natural History Information Network. 2000.

Illinois birds: Burrowing Owl (Athene

cunicularia). Illinois Natural History Survey

webpage. Http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/pub/ifwis/

birds/index.html (version August, 2000).

32 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
James, D. A., and J. C. Neal. 1986. Arkansas Birds:

their distribution and abundance. University of

Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

James, P. C., and R. H. M. Espie. 1997. Current

status of the Burrowing Owl in North America: an

agency survey. Pages 3-5 in J. Lincer and K.

Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, its biology

and management including the Proceedings of the

First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.

Raptor Research Report Number 9.

James, P. C. and T. J. Ethier. 1989. Trends in the

winter distribution and abundance of Burrowing

Owls in North America. American Birds 43:1224-

1225.

James, P. C., and G. A. Fox. 1987. Effects of some

insecticides on productivity of Burrowing Owls.

Blue Jay 45:65-71.

James, P. C., G A. Fox, and T. J. Ethier. 1990. Is the

operational use of strychnine to control ground

squirrels detrimental to Burrowing Owls?

Journal of Raptor Research 24:120-123.

James, T. R., and R. W. Seabloom. 1968. Notes on the

burrow ecology and food habits of the Burrowing

Owl in southwestern North Dakota. Blue Jay

26:83-84.

Johnson, B. S. 1997. Demography and population

dynamics of the Burrowing Owl. Pages 28-33 in J.

Lincer and K. Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing

Owl, its biology and management including the

Proceedings of the First International Burrowing

Owl Symposium. Raptor Research Report

Number 9.

Kantrud, H. A. 1981. Grazing intensity effects on the

breeding avifauna of North Dakota native

grasslands. Canadian Field-Naturalist 95:404-417.

Kantrud, H. A., and R. L. Kologiski. 1982. Effects of

soils and grazing on breeding birds of

uncultivated upland grasslands of the northern

Great Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Wildlife Research Report 15.

Kirk, D. A., D. Hussell, and E. Dunn. 1994/95.

Raptor population status and trends in Canada.

Bird Trends 4:2-9.

Konrad, P. M., and D. S. Gilmer. 1984. Observations

on the nesting ecology of Burrowing Owls in

central North Dakota. Prairie Naturalist 16:129-

130.

Korfanta, N. M. 2001. Population genetics of

migratory and resident Burrowing Owls (Athene

cunicularia) elucidated by microsatellite DNA

markers. M.S. Thesis. University of Wyoming,

Laramie, WY.

Korfanta, N. M., L. W. Ayers, S. H. Anderson, and 

D. B. McDonald. 2001. A preliminary assessment

of Burrowing Owl status in Wyoming. Journal of

Raptor Research 35 :337-343.

Lehman, R. N., L. B. Carpenter, K. Steenhof, and M.

N. Kochert. 1998. Assessing relative abundance

and reproductive success of shrubsteppe raptors.

Journal of Field Ornithology 69:244-256.

Leupin, E. E. and D. J. Low. 2001. Burrowing Owl

reintroduction efforts in the Thompson-Nicola

region of British Columbia. Journal of Raptor

Research 35:392-398.

Lutz, R. S., and D. L. Plumpton. 1999. Philopatry

and nest site reuse by Burrowing Owls:

implications for productivity. Journal of Raptor

Research 33:149-153.

MacCracken, J. G., D. W. Uresk, and R. M. Hansen.

1985. Vegetation and soils of Burrowing Owl nest

sites in Conata Basin, South Dakota. Condor

87:152-154.

Martell, M., H. B. Tordoff, and P. T. Redig. 1994. The

introduction of three native raptors into the

Midwestern United States. Raptor Conservation

Today: 465-470.

Martell, M. S., J. Schladweiler, and F. Cuthbert.

2001. Status and attempted reintroduction of

Burrowing Owls in Minnesota, USA. Journal of

Raptor Research 35:331-336.

Martin, D. J. 1973. Selected aspects of Burrowing

Owl ecology and behavior. Condor 75:446-456.

Millsap, B. A. 1996. Florida Burrowing Owl. Pages

579-587 in J. A. Rodgers, Jr., H. W. Kale II, and

H. T. Smith, editors. Rare and Endangered Biota

of Florida, Vol V. Birds. University Press of

Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Millsap, B. A, M. I. Bellocq, and M. Mullenix. 1997.

Overview of the literature on the Burrowing Owl.

Pages 6-10 in J. Lincer and K. Steenhof, editors.

The Burrowing Owl, its biology and management

including the Proceedings of the First

International Burrowing Owl Symposium. Raptor

Research Report Number 9.

Munro, W. T., R. C. Lincoln, and R. W. Ritcey. 1984.

Reestablishing Burrowing Owls—experiences in

British Columbia. Proceedings of the Western

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 64:165-

170.

Murphy, R. K. 1993. History, nesting biology, and

predation ecology of raptors in the Missouri

Coteau of northwestern North Dakota. Ph.D.

dissertation. Montana State University, Bozeman,

Montana.

Literature Cited 33
Murphy, R. K., D. W. Hasselblad, C. D. Grondahl, J.

G. Sidle, R. E. Martin, and D. W. Freed. 2001.

Status of the Burrowing Owl in North Dakota.

Journal of Raptor Research 35:322–330.

NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of

Life. 2001. Version 1.6. Arlington, Virginia.

Http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Pezzolesi, L. S. W. 1994. The western Burrowing

Owl: increasing prairie dog abundance, foraging

theory, and nest site fidelity. M.S. Thesis. Texas

Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

Plumpton, D. L. 1992. Aspects of nest site selection

and habitat use by Burrowing Owls at the Rocky

Mountain Arsenal, Colorado. M.S. Thesis. Texas

Technical University, Lubbock, Texas.

Plumpton, D. L., and R. S. Lutz. 1993. Nesting

habitat use by Burrowing Owls in Colorado.

Journal of Raptor Research 27:175-179.

Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).

1995. Carbofuran. Decision Document E95-05.

Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health

Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Ratcliff, B. D. 1986. The Manitoba Burrowing Owl

survey, 1982-1984. Blue Jay 44:31-37.

Restani, M., L. R. Rau, and D. L. Flath. 2001.

Nesting ecology of Burrowing Owls occupying

prairie dog towns in southeastern Montana.

Journal of Raptor Research 35:296-303.

Rich, T. 1984. Monitoring Burrowing Owl

populations: implications of burrow re-use.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:178-180.

Rich, T. 1986. Habitat and nest-site selection by

Burrowing Owls in the sagebrush steppe of

Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:548-

555.

Rodriguez-Estrella, R., F. Chavez Ramirez, and G.

L. Holroyd. 1998. Current knowledge of the

Burrowing Owl in Mexico: what is needed for a

conservation plan? Abstract and notes. Second

International Burrowing Owl Symposium, Ogden,

Utah.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2001. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey Results

and Analysis 1966-2000. Version 2001.2. U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbr-pwrc.

usgs.gov/bbs.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey Results

and Analysis 1966-2001. Version 2002.1. U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbr-pwrc.

usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html.

Sauer, J. R., S. Schwartz, and B. Hoover. 1996. The

Christmas Bird Count Home Page. Version 95.1

U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife

Research Center, Laurel, Maryland.

http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/cbc.html.

Schmutz, J. K. 1997. Selected microhabitat variables

near nests of Burrowing Owls compared to

unoccupied sites in Alberta. Pages 80-83 in J.

Lincer and K. Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing

Owl, its biology and management including the

Proceedings of the First International Burrowing

Owl Symposium. Raptor Research Report

Number 9.

Scott, T. G. 1940. The Western Burrowing Owl in

Clay County, Iowa, in 1938. American Midland

Naturalist 24:585-593.

Sheffield, S. R. 1997a. Current status, distribution,

and conservation of the Burrowing Owl (Speotyto

cunicularia) in Midwestern North America.

Pages 399-407 in J. R. Duncan, D. H. Johnson,

and T. H. Nicholls, editors. Biology and

conservation of owls of the Northern

Hemisphere. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, General

Technical Report NC-190. North Central Forest

Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Sheffield, S. R. 1997b. Owls as biomonitors of

environmental health hazards. Pages 383-398 in

Biology and conservation of owls of the North

Hemisphere. USDA Forest Service, General

Technical Report NC-190.

Sheffield, S. R. and M. Howery. 2001. Current status,

distribution, and conservation of the Burrowing

Owl in Oklahoma. Journal of Raptor Research

35:351-356.

Shire, G. G., K. Brown, and G. Winegard. 2000.

Communication towers: A deadly hazard to birds.

American Bird Conservancy, Washington, DC.

Shyry, D. T., T. I. Wellicome, J. K. Schmutz, G. L.

Erickson, D. L. Scobie, R. F. Russell, and R. G.

Martin. 2001. Burrowing Owl population-trend

surveys in southern Alberta: 1991-2000. Journal of

Raptor Research 35:310-315.

Sidle, J. G., M. Ball, T. Byer, J. J. Chynoweth, G. Foli,

R. Hodorff, G. Moravek, R. Peterson, and D. N.

Svingen. 2001. Occurrence of Burrowing Owls in

black-tailed prairie dog colonies on Great Plains

National Grasslands. Journal of Raptor Research

35:316-321.

Sissons, R., K. Scalise, and T. I. Wellicome. 2001.

Nocturnal foraging habitat use of the Burrowing

Owl in a heavily cultivated region of southern

Saskatchewan. Journal of Raptor Research

35:304–309.

34 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Skeel, M. A., J. Keith, and C. S. Palaschuk. 2001. A

population decline recorded by Operation

Burrowing Owl in Saskatchewan. Journal of

Raptor Research 35:371-377.

Thompson, C. D. 1984. Selected aspects of

Burrowing Owl ecology in central Wyoming. M.S.

Thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie,

Wyoming.

Thompson, C. D. and S. H. Anderson. 1988. Foraging

behavior and food habits of Burrowing Owl in

Wyoming. Prairie Naturalist 20:23-28.

Thomsen, L. 1971. Behavior and ecology of

Burrowing Owls on the Oakland Municipal

Airport. Condor 73:177-192.

Thomson, K. A. 1988. Management of Burrowing

Owls in Manitoba, population distribution and

plan for recovery. M.S. Thesis. Natural Resource

Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,

Manitoba.

Toombs, T. P. 1997. Burrowing Owl nest-site selection

in relation to soil texture and prairie dog colony

attributes. M.S. Thesis. Colorado State

University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Trulio, L. A. 1995. Passive relocation: a method to

preserve Burrowing Owls on disturbed sites.

Journal of Field Ornithology 66:99-106.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of

Conservation Concern. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,

Administrative Report, Arlington, Virginia.

http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/

bcc2002.pdf.

VerCauteren, T. L., S. W. Gillihan, and S. W.

Hutchings. 2001. Distribution of Burrowing Owls

on public and private lands in Colorado. Journal

of Raptor Research 35:357-361.

VerCauteren, T. L., D. J. Hanni, and S. Hutchings.

In review. Occurrence of Burrowing Owls on

black-tailed prairie dog colonies in northern

Mexico during the winter. Journal of Raptor

Research.

Warnock, R. G. 1997. Spatial, temporal and turnover

dynamics of Burrowing Owl (Speotyto

cunicularia) distribution in the extensively

fragmented grasslands of Saskatchewan. M.S.

Thesis, University of Regina, Regina,

Saskatchewan.

Warnock, R. G., and P. C. James. 1997. Habitat

fragmentation and Burrowing Owls (Speotyto

cunicularia) in Saskatchewan. In J. R. Duncan,

D. H. Johnson, and T. H. Nicholls, editors.

Biology and conservation of owls of the Northern

Hemisphere: Second International Symposium.

U.S.D.A., Forest Service General Technical

Report NC-190, North Central Forest

Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Wedgwood, J. A. 1976. Burrowing Owl in southcentral Saskatchewan. Blue Jay 34:26-44.

Wedgwood, J. A., 1978. The status of the Burrowing

Owl in Canada. Committee on the Status of

Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Wedgwood, J. A. 1979. Status report on the

Burrowing Owl, Athene cunicularia. Committee

on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

Wellicome, T. I. 1994. Taverner award recipient’s

report: Is reproduction in Burrowing Owls

limited by food supply? Picoides 7:9-10.

Wellicome, T. I. 1997. Status of the Burrowing Owl

(Speotyto cunicularia hypugaea) in Alberta.

Wildlife Status Report No. 11. Alberta

Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management

Division, Edmonton, Alberta.

Wellicome, T. I., and E. A. Haug. 1995. Second

update of status report on the Burrowing Owl

(Speotyto cunicularia) in Canada. Committee on

the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada,

Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada,

Ottawa, Ontario.

Wellicome, T. I., and G. L. Holroyd. 2001. The Second

International Burrowing Owl Symposium:

background and context. Journal of Raptor

Research 35:269-273.

Zarn, M. 1974. Habitat management series for

unique or endangered species. U.S. Department

of Interior, Bureau of Land Management,

Technical Note T/N-250 (no. 11), Denver,

Colorado.

Literature Cited 35
Arizona

Summary: Combining historical and recent records,

Burrowing Owls have been documented (breeding

and/or wintering) in 14 of 15 counties (all except

Greenlee County, Fig. A-1) (Brown 2001). A family

group was observed in the San Rafael Valley, Santa

Cruz County in 2002 (J. Ruth, pers. commun.).

Although not present in the early 1900’s along the

lower Colorado River, Burrowing Owls are now

common there, suggesting that agriculture may have

benefitted the species in that region (Rosenberg et

al. 1991, Brown 2001). However, the vegetation

maintenance regime of farming and water districts

may cause these populations to remain unstable due

to unreliable and temporary habitats (Brown 2001).

Main concentrations in the Tucson area are located

at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (DMAFB) and

along the west branch of the Santa Cruz River

(Estabrook and Mannan 1998).

Statewide Burrowing Owls populations appear to be

relatively stable to slightly decreasing (T. Corman,

pers. commun.); however, no quantitative

information has been gathered on Burrowing Owls

since Phillips et al. (1964; Brown 2001). Some local

populations are decreasing, especially in urban and

agricultural areas, and some populations have been

extirpated (Brown 2001).

Status determination in the sw. United States in 1979

and 1988 was precluded by insufficient information

(Johnson et al. 1979, Johnson-Duncan et al. 1988).

A preliminary review of Burrowing Owls in Arizona

was conducted in 1998, through extensive literature

reviews, questionnaires, requests for observations,

and personal observations (Brown 2001). A formal

status could not be given due to the lack of

quantitative information on this species in Arizona.

Through survey responses, state biologists

estimated 100 to 1,000 pairs in 1992 (James and

Espie 1997).

BBS: No significant trends were detected over any

survey periods (Sauer et al. 2002). 

CBC: No significant trend was detected over the

survey period (Sauer et al. 1996).

Atlas: Based on preliminary information collected by

the Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas (Arizona Breeding

Bird Atlas, Unpubl. data, 1993-2001, C. Wise, pers.

commun.), the overall breeding range in Arizona has

not changed substantially in the 1990’s. Burrowing

Owls were reported in 78 (4%) of 1825 BBA blocks

(Fig A-1, T. Corman, pers. commun).

Research/Monitoring: The Urban Raptor Nest

Watch Program of the Arizona Game and Fish

Department (c. Arizona) recorded six nests for the

Phoenix Metro Area in 1994, three in 1995, and five

or six in 1996 (F. Esparza, pers. commun.).

Estabrook and Mannan’s (1998) urban study found

77 active breeding burrows in the Tucson area in

1997; 28 of these were on DMAFB and the majority

of the others were on the west branch of the Santa

Cruz River. The number of active burrows appeared

to remain stable year-round on DMAFB and fairly

stable in the Santa Cruz River flood plain; the

vegetation maintenance regime along the flood plain

often destroys active burrows (Estabrook and

Mannan 1998).

Conservation Activities: Artificial burrows have been

placed in some urban areas of the greater Phoenix

area (T. Corman, pers. commun.). Artificial burrows

have also been constructed at Cibola National

Wildlife Refuge along the Lower Colorado River.

Major Populations: A major population occurs at the

Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and west branch

Santa Cruz River flood plain near Tucson.

Unconfirmed high numbers of Burrowing Owls have

been reported along the irrigation canals around the

Yuma area. Burrowing Owls have been reported

from a variety of other areas throughout Arizona;

however, no quantitative information has been

documented other than in the Tucson region

(Estabrook and Mannan 1998).

State Status: None

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/S3 (rare and uncommon in

the state)

36 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

Appendix A: State Summaries of 

Burrowing Owl Status
Fig. A-1. Distribution of the Burrowing Owl in Arizona from the Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas project

(Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas, Unpubl. data (1993-2001), C. Wise, pers. commun.)

Appendix A 37
Habitat Condition: Arizona BBA activities located

Burrowing Owls in the following habitat types: semidesert grassland, plains grassland, cropland, Great

Basin desert-scrub, lower Colorado River biome of

the Sonoran Desert-scrub, barren ground, Great

Basin grassland, Arizona upland biome of Sonoran

Desert-scrub, Mojave Desert-scrub, rural, and

residential (Brown 2001). From survey data, Brown

(2001) indicated they also use parks (golf courses,

cemeteries), cultivated woodlands (orchards, tree

farms) and airports (including Air Force bases).

Burrowing Owls inhabit grass, forb, and open shrub

stages of pinyon pine and ponderosa pine habitats

(Carothers et al. 1973, Karlaus and Eckert 1974,

Zenier et al. 1990). Other areas in Arizona where the

owls might be found include washes, irrigation

canals, near water tanks or corrals on rangelands,

and in vacant lots, and other disturbed sites in urban

and rural areas (Rosenberg et al. 1991, Witzeman

1997, deVos 1998, Brown 2001). Occasionally they are

found in sandy, sparsely vegetated riparian

woodlands in the Lower Colorado River Valley

(Rosenberg et al. 1991).

Burrowing Owls are predominately associated with

prairie dog towns and round-tailed ground squirrel

populations (deVos 1998, Latta et al. 1999, Brown

2001). Both of these burrowing mammals usually

inhabit open environments and provide burrows and

short vegetation (Hoffmeister 1986, deVos 1998).

Shrub encroachment by mesquite in se. Arizona has

eliminated extensive tracts of grassland habitat for

the Burrowing Owl (Brandt 1951). In n. Arizona,

Burrowing Owls formerly inhabited Anita and

Pasture Washes in the Grand Canyon region, but the

habitat is now unsuitable due to shrub encroachment

(Brown 2001). Such habitat change has been due to

grazing practices and prairie dog control programs

(Brandt 1951, Brown 2001).

Threats: The Arizona Partners in Flight Bird

Conservation Plan (Latta et. al 1999) lists the

following threats: 1) Reduction of prairie dogs and

ground squirrels through control programs and

plague events indirectly limit habitats available to

Burrowing Owls; 2) Urban and agricultural

development directly reduces available habitat; 3)

Urbanization also increases the risk of contraction of

Trichomoniasis from doves (Estabrook and Mannan

1998); and 4) increased mortality from vehicles,

humans, and domestic and feral animals.

Literature Cited:

Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas. Unpubl. Data. 1993-

1999. Arizona Game and Fish Department,

Nongame Branch, Phoenix, Arizona.

Brandt, H. 1951. Arizona and its bird life. The Bird

Research Foundation, Cleveland, OH.

Brown, N. L. 2001. The Howdy Owls of Arizona: A

review of the status of Athene cunicularia.

Journal of Raptor Research 35:344-350.

Carothers, S. W, J. R. Haldeman, and R. P. Balda.

1973. Breeding birds of the San Francisco

Mountain Area and the White Mountains. Tech.

Series. No. 12. Northern Arizona Soc. of Science

and Art, Inc. Flagstaff, Arizona.

deVos, J. C., Jr. 1998. Burrowing Owl (Athene

cunicularia). Pp 166-169 in R. L. Glinski, editor.

The Raptors of Arizona. University of Arizona

Press, Tucson, AZ and Arizona Game and Fish

Department., Phoenix, Arizona.

Estabrook, T. S., and R. W. Mannan. 1998. Urban

habitat selection by Burrowing Owls; Final

Report. Heritage Grant U96006; Arizona Game

and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. Univ.

of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona and Arizona

Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

James, P. C., and R. H. M. Espie. 1997. Current

status of the Burrowing Owl in North America: an

agency survey. Pages 3-5 in J. Lincer and K.

Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, its biology

and management including the Proceedings of the

First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.

Raptor Research Report Number 9.

Johnson, R. R., L. T. Haight, and J. M. Simpson.

1979. Owl populations and species status in the

southwestern United States. in P. P. Schaeffer,

and S. M. Ehlers, editors. Proceedings of the

National Audubon Society’s Symposium on the

Owls of the West: their Ecology and

Conservation, Tiburon, California.

Johnson-Duncan, E. E., D. K. Duncan, and R. R.

Johnson. 1988. Small nesting raptors as indicators

of change in the southwest desert. Pp 232-236 in

Glinksi, Pendelton, Moss, LeFranc, Millsap, and

Hoffman, editors. Proceedings of the Southwest

Raptor National Wildlife Federation Scientific

and Technical Series No. 11. Washington, DC.

38 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Karlaus, K. E., and A. W. Eckert. 1974. The owls of

North America. Doubleday, Garden City, New

York.

Latta, M. J., C. J. Beardmore, and T. E. Corman.

1999. Arizona Partners in Flight Bird

Conservation Plan. Version 1.0. Nongame and

Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report

142. Arizona Game and Fish Department,

Phoenix, Arizona.

Phillips, A. R, J. T. Marshall, and G. Monson. 1964.

The Birds of Arizona. University of Arizona

Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Rosenberg, K. V., R. D. Ohmart, W. C. Hunter, and B.

W. Anderson. 1991. Birds of the Lower Colorado

River Valley. University of Arizona Press, Tucson,

Arizona.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966–2001. Version 2002.1. U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbr-pwrc.

usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html.

Sauer, J. R., S. Schwartz, and B. Hoover. 1996. The

Christmas Bird Count Home Page. Version 95.1.

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel,

Maryland.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. Mayer, and

M. White, editors. 1990. California’s Wildlife,

Volume 11: Birds. The Resources Agency,

Sacramento, California.

Witzeman, J. L., S. R. Demaree, and E.L. Radke.

1997. Birds of Phoenix and Maricopa county,

Arizona. Maricopa Audubon Society.

Additional Author For Arizona State Summary:

Nikolle L. Brown, 7779 N. Leonard, Clovis,

California 93611

Appendix A 39
California

Summary: California supports one of the largest

year-round (resident) and winter (migrant)

populations of Burrowing Owls within the United

States. The distribution of Burrowing Owls has

changed considerably since introduction of industrial

agriculture and increased urbanization, reflecting

both losses and gains in local populations. Surveys

conducted during 1991-93 reported >9,000 breeding

pairs. Most Burrowing Owls occurred within the

Central (24%) and Imperial Valleys (71%), primarily

in agricultural areas. Burrowing Owls have

disappeared or declined in several southern

California and San Francisco Bay counties and in

coastal areas. Without increased regulatory

protection of habitat, Burrowing Owls will likely be

extirpated in some areas. However, the large and

widespread current population and the Burrowing

Owl’s high reproductive performance in disturbed

environments suggests that the California

population is not under immediate or foreseeable

threat. Changes in agricultural practices,

particularly regarding water conveyance, and

urbanization have the potential to quickly affect

California’s Burrowing Owl population. Evaluation

of the ability of large publicly managed lands to

support Burrowing Owl populations is important to

assess the Burrowing Owl’s viability in California.

BBS: Significant increases in relative abundance in

California over the 1966-2001 survey period (Trend

= 5.5, P <0.01, n = 32) and the 1980-2001 subinterval

(Trend = 5.0, P <0.05, n = 24). Data credibility is

good indicating adequate sample size, moderate

precision, and moderate abundance on routes (Sauer

et al. 2002).

CBC: Significant decreasing trends in Burrowing

Owl relative abundance were detected from 1959-88

(Trend = –1.2, P <0.05, n = 97) (Sauer et al. 1996).

Atlas: Several counties have atlases, but no single

state atlas is available.

Research/Monitoring: Historical accounts indicated

that the Burrowing Owl was widely distributed and

relatively common in California grasslands (Canfield

1869, Dawson 1923, Grinnell and Miller 1944).

Numbers during winters were reported to have

declined between 1954-1986 (James and Ethier 1989).

Additional declines were reported from the San

Francisco Bay area, where development has reduced

the amount of Burrowing Owl habitat (DeSante et al.

unpubl. ms, Trulio 1997). Johnson (1997) reported a

rapid decline in numbers of nesting Burrowing Owls

on a 370-acre study site on the University of

California Davis campus (Yolo Co.).

The Institute for Bird Populations conducted a

volunteer-based survey in 1991-1993 within most of

the range of Burrowing Owls in California (DeSante

et al. 1997, DeSante et al. unpubl. ms.). They

estimated over 9,000 breeding pairs of Burrowing

Owls in California (Fig. A-1). Most Burrowing Owls

found during the survey were in agricultural areas

although it was likely that higher numbers exist in

large grasslands than revealed through the surveys

(DeSante et al. In press). Based on comparisons of

survey results and observations made during the

early 1980s, DeSante et al. (unpubl. ms.) reported

that Burrowing Owls were extirpated during the last

10-15 years from several areas in California,

including Napa, Marin, San Francisco, Santa Cruz,

and Ventura counties, and coastal San Luis Obispo

county and Coachella Valley. Few individuals were

observed in Sonoma, Santa Barbara, Orange, coastal

Monterey, and San Mateo counties. Most of these

areas maintained few Burrowing Owls prior to

reported declines; occasional observations of

Burrowing Owls nesting in some of these counties

have been reported recently (D. DeSante, pers.

commun.). The most apparent decline of Burrowing

Owls was reported from the Bay area, where

DeSante et al. (1997) estimated an approximately

50% decline in Burrowing Owl numbers from the

1980s to the early 1990s.

A multi-site demographic study was initiated in 1997

and coordinated through The Institute for Bird

Populations, Oregon State University, and San Jose

State University. The study included four sites by

1998, representing the primary habitats in which

most of California’s Burrowing Owl populations

exist. This included South San Francisco Bay (“Bay

Area”) representing urban environments, Naval Air

Station Lemoore (“Lemoore”) representing small

grassland patches surrounded by agriculture,

Carrizo Plain National Monument (“Carrizo”),

representing large grasslands, and the Imperial

Valley, representing intensive agriculture with nests

restricted to field borders. Preliminary results from

this study (Rosenberg et al., unpubl. data)

demonstrate variability in density and demographic

performance among sites (Table A-1).

The number of pairs/ha within the entire study area

was similar among sites except for Imperial Valley,

which had densities approx. 8 times that of all other

sites (Table A-1). By contrast, the number of pairs/ha

of potential nest habitat, varied dramatically.

Survival rates of Burrowing Owls captured as adults

were similar among sites, with Imperial Valley

having the highest rates (Table A-1), although there

was high temporal variation that was site-specific

(Rosenberg et al., unpubl. data). Mortality was high

at Carrizo, with predation by other raptors identified

as the single largest cause (Rosier et al., unpubl.

ms). Reproductive rates, estimated as the number of

21-28 day-old young (Gorman et al., unpubl. ms.),

varied among sites (Table A-1), but temporal

variation within sites was greater. Temporal

variation was apparently related to the abundance of

vertebrate prey (Haley 2002, Gervais 2002, Ronan

2002). Reproductive rates were highest in the two

agricultural sites, Lemoore and Imperial Valley.

Nest failure was largely responsible for differences

among the four sites.

40 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Fig. A-2. Distribution of Burrowing Owl Populations in California, 1991-1993 (9,266 breeding pairs, estimate)

(DeSante et al. unpubl. ms.).

Appendix A 41

For Burrowing Owls, estimates of juvenile survival

rates have rarely been reported (but see Gervais

2002), due in part to the difficulty of separating

survival from emigration. If one assumes that

survival is lower for juveniles than adults (i.e., <0.5,

Table A-1), then stability is most likely to occur only

when reproductive rates are >2 young/nest (Table

A-2). This reproductive rate was achieved or

exceeded at each site in some years.

Densities, survival rates, and reproductive rates of

Burrowing Owls were high in a wide range of

modified habitat conditions. These demographic

characteristics were highest in agricultural areas

(Lemoore and Imperial Valley) and similar between

the urban area of southern San Francisco Bay and

the grasslands of Carrizo. If we assume that

Carrizo’s population growth rate over the long-term

is close to stable, then the modified environments of

agriculture and urban landscapes (given the

conditions at the time of the study) seem likely to

provide habitat for stable populations of Burrowing

Owls based on the preliminary results from the

demographic study. The documented long-term

decline in the San Francisco Bay Area is due to nest

habitat loss. Further work determining densities of

Burrowing Owls in large grasslands, survival rates

of juvenile Burrowing Owls, and dispersal patterns

of both juveniles and adults will be required for a

better understanding of the long-term viability of

Burrowing Owls in California. These analyses are

now underway for the California demographic

studies reported here.

Conservation Activities: The Burrowing Owl

Consortium, an ad hoc group of Burrowing Owl

biologists and advocates in the San Francisco Bay

prepared the “Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and

Mitigation Guidelines” in 1993 (California

Burrowing Owl Consortium 1997), the basis of

California Department of Fish and Game’s (1995)

“Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.”

Repeated conflicts between Burrowing Owls and

development projects have lead some municipalities

and larger-scale planning boards to consider

preparing Burrowing Owl habitat conservation

programs for their respective jurisdictions.

In an effort to better inform the public, a brochure

and two videos on the Burrowing Owl in California

were prepared by The Institute for Bird Populations

and Oregon State University. These have been

distributed at no charge to federal and state natural

resource agencies, visitor centers at locations with

Burrowing Owls, and to elementary and high

schools.
Table A-1. Comparison of mean density, survival, and reproductive rates of Burrowing Owls at four sites in

California.

Years of Pairs Crude Ecological No.

Site Study Area (km2) observed Densitya Densityb Survivalc Youngd

Bay Area 98-01 60 (estimate) 64 1.1 5.2 0.55 1.6/3.1

Lemoore 97-00 76.1 67 0.9 15.2 0.44 2.8/3.8

Carrizo 97-00 183.5 38.9 1.0 1.0 0.23/0.61 1.9/4.0

Imperial Valley 98-01 11.8 99 8.3 145.6 0.60 2.1/2.9

a Number of estimated pairs/km2

.

b Number of estimated pairs/km2 of potential nest habitat. A width of 20 m was used along canals and drains to estimate the area of nest

habitat within the Imperial Valley.

c Apparent annual survival rates are based on the single best average estimate with years and sex pooled. At Carrizo, survival rate was

estimated as an annual interval from mark-recapture data (0.23) and from radio-telemetry data (0.61) over a 3 month interval during the

breeding season. The mark-recapture estimate from Carrizo is negatively biased due to high breeding dispersal (Rosier et al., umpubl.

ms.). Apparent survival is an estimate of survival under the assumption that emigration from the study area does not exist.

d Number of young reported are, first, the average number for all nests assessed, and, second, the number at successful nests.

Estimates are based on counts during 5, 30-min observation (Gorman et al, unpubl. ms.; Rosenburg and Haley In press).

Table A-2. Estimates of juvenile survival rates necessary for population stability under different adult

reproductive and survival rates.

Necessary

Adult Survival Reproductive Rate Juvenile Survival

0.5 1.5 0.67

0.5 2.0 0.50

0.5 2.5 0.40

0.6 1.5 0.54

0.6 2.0 0.40

0.6 2.5 0.32

42 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

Major Populations: Genetic analyses of Burrowing

Owls from three of the demographic study sites

(Lemoore, Carrizo, Imperial Valley) failed to identify

population differentiation (Korfanta 2001). This was

likely due to the continuous habitat relative to the

long-distance dispersal of juveniles and some adults

(Rosier et al., unpubl. ms). Owls are most abundant

within the Central and Imperial Valleys (Fig. A-1).

Based on the survey of DeSante et al. (unpubl. ms),

most (91%) Burrowing Owls occur on private lands.

However, the difficulty of detecting Burrowing Owls

nesting within large grasslands (Ronan 2002,

Rosenberg et al., unpubl. data) coupled with the

densities estimated for Carrizo (Table A-1) suggests

that large publicly managed grasslands within public

lands may have large numbers of Burrowing Owls.

State Status: Species of Special Concern—declining

population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing

threats have made them vulnerable to extinction.

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/S2—imperiled in the

state because of rarity or because of some factor(s)

making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the

state.

Habitat Use and Condition: Burrowing Owl nesting

habitat is similar to the characteristics of land

preferred for agricultural, residential, and

commercial development. Because California’s

human population growth will continue, grassland

and desert habitat can be expected to be further

reduced. The primary regions of grasslands and

deserts supporting Burrowing Owl populations are

those managed by public agencies such as Bureau of

Land Mangament and Department of Defense,

although quantitative estimates of potential habitat

have not yet been computed. Presumably, large

areas of undeveloped deserts have sparse but stable

(over the long-term) Burrowing Owl populations.

Areas undergoing rapid urbanization, such as the

San Francisco Bay area and many parts of southern

California, have lost and will continue to lose

habitats that once supported Burrowing Owl

populations. The Central Valley and Imperial 

Valley have lost most of their native vegetation to

large-scale agriculture, but Burrowing Owls are

abundant (DeSante et al. In press; Rosenberg and

Haley In press).
In California, Burrowing Owls have shown

incredible tolerance for human encroachment and

degradation of native habitats. In urban areas, they

are often found nesting within landfills, golf courses,

airports, and vacant lots within highly developed

areas (Haug et al. 1993, Trulio 1997). The primary

criterion for Burrowing Owl occurrence is a nest

burrow. Because of this, habitat quality is spatially

variable and highly dynamic. In modified

ecosystems, habitat quality is often dependent on

individual landholders and sensitive to a wide variety

of land uses, such as farming practices.

Threats: Valley-bottoms in or near population centers

are highly valued for residential and commercial

development. Rapid development within the San

Francisco Bay Area and other municipalities is

responsible for declines in Burrowing Owl numbers

in these areas. Further loss of Burrowing Owls on

private lands within urban areas is expected under

current land-use regulations. Because of the large

numbers of Burrowing Owls that reside within the

agricultural matrix of the Central and Imperial

Valleys, change in methods of farming practices,

particularly water conveyance, is likely to impact

Burrowing Owl numbers (Rosenberg and Haley In

press). Because Burrowing Owls in agricultural

systems spend a large proportion of their time

foraging in fields (Rosenberg and Haley In press),

pesticide use will remain a threat to these

populations. Some populations maintain substantial

body burdens of persistent pesticides that may

inhibit reproduction (Gervais et al. 2000), although

these levels appear to fluctuate through time,

making their impact difficult to predict (Gervais

2002). Throughout California, ground-squirrel

control programs may affect Burrowing Owl

numbers and persistence in local areas because most

nest burrows are constructed by these species.

Burrowing Owls and their nests are protected by

California Fish and Game Code and the U. S.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Avoiding violation of

these regulations usually requires that disturbance

at occupied nest territories be reduced or eliminated

during the nesting season. The California

Environmental Quality Act offers some protection

by stipulating that significant impacts to the species

be mitigated. Although outright killing of the birds

and active nests is addressed by California Fish and

Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the

loss of habitat is not. Existing regulatory

mechanisms have not been effective at preventing or

discouraging intentional destruction of Burrowing

Owl habitat, including nest sites.

Vehicle collisions have been cited as a potentially

significant source of mortality (Haug et al. 1993;

Clayton and Schmutz 1997, Rosenberg et al., unpubl.

data). The risk of vehicle collisions is likely greater

in developed areas with dense human populations or

along areas where Burrowing Owls nest

predominately near roads.

Literature Cited:

California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1997.

Burrowing Owl survey protocol and mitigation

guidelines. Appendix B, pp 171-177 in Lincer, J. L.

and K. Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, its

biology and management including the

Proceedings of the First International Burrowing

Owl Symposium. Raptor Research Report

Number 9.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Staff

report on Burrowing Owl mitigation. Unpublished

report.

Canfield, C. S. 1869. Habits of the Burrowing Owl in

California. American Naturalist 2:583-586.

Clayton K. M., and J. K. Schmutz. 1997. Burrowing

(Speotyto cunicularia) owl survival in prairie

Canada. Pages 107-110 in J. R. Duncan, D. H.

Johnson, and T. H. Nicholls, editors. Biology and

conservation of owls of the northern hemisphere:

2nd International Symposium, Winnipeg,

Manitoba, Canada. General Technical Report NC190, USDA, Forest Service, North Central Forest

Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Dawson, W. L. 1923. Birds of California, Volume 2.

South Moulton Company, San Francisco,

California.

DeSante, D.F., E.D. Ruhlen, S.L. Adamany, K.M.

Burton and S. Amin. Pp.38-48 in Lincer, J.L. and

K. Steenhof, Eds. 1997. The Burrowing Owl, It’s

Biology and Management: Proceedings of the

First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.

Raptor Research Report No. 9.

DeSante, D. F., E. D. Ruhlen, and D. K. Rosenberg.

In press. Density and abundance of burrowing

owls in the agricultural matrix of the Imperial

Valley, California. Studies in Avian Biology.

Gervais, J. A. 2002. Evaluating space use and

pesticide exposure risk for Burrowing Owl in an

agricultural environment. Ph.D. Dissertation,

Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Oregon.

Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, D. M. Fry, L. Trulio

and K. K. Sturm. 2000. Burrowing Owls and

agricultural pesticides: evaluation of residues and

risks for three populations in California, USA.

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19:337-

343.

Grinnell, J. and A.H. Miller. 1944. The Distribution of

the Birds of California. Cooper Ornithological

Club. Berkeley, California.

Haley, K. A. 2002. The role of food limitation and

predation on reproductive success of burrowing

owls in southern California. M.S. Thesis, Oregon

State Univ., Corvallis, Oregon.

Appendix A 43
Haug, E. A., B.A. Millsap and M.S. Martell. 1993.

Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). in A.

Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North

America, No. 61. The Academy of Natural

Sciences, Philadelphia, PA and The American

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC.

James, P. C. and T .J. Ethier. 1989. Trends in the

winter distribution and abundance of Burrowing

Owls in North America. American Birds 43:1224-

1225.

Johnson, B. S. 1997. Demography and population

dynamics of the Burrowing Owl. Pages 28-33 in J.

L. Lincer and K. Steenhof, editors. The

Burrowing Owl, its biology and management

including the Proceedings of the First

International Burrowing Owl Symposium. Raptor

Research Report Number 9.

Korfanta, N. M. 2001. Population genetics of

migratory and resident Burrowing Owls (Athene

cunicularia) elucidated by microsatellite DNA

markers. M.S. Thesis. University of Wyoming,

Laramie, Wyoming.

Ronan, N. A. 2002. Habitat selection, reproductive

success, and site fidelity of burrowing owls in a

grassland ecosystem. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State

University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Rosenberg, D. K., and K. L. Haley. In press. The

ecology of Burrowing Owls in the agroecosystem

of the Imperial Valley, California. Studies in Avian

Biology.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966–2001. Version 2002.1. U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbr-pwrc.

usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html.

Sauer, J. R., S. Schwartz, and B. Hoover. 1996. The

Christmas Bird Count Home Page. Version 95.1.

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel,

Maryland.

Trulio, L. 1997. Burrowing Owl demography and

habitat use at two urban sites in Santa Clara

County, California. Pages 84-89 in J. L. Lincer

and K. Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, its

biology and management including the

Proceedings of the First International Burrowing

Owl Symposium. Raptor Research Report

Number 9.

Sources of Unpublished Manuscripts and Data

DeSante, D. F., E. D. Ruhlen, and D. K. Rosenberg.

The distribution and abundance of Burrowing

Owls in California: evidence for a declining

population. The Institute for Bird Populations,

Contribution No. 58.

Gorman, L., D. K. Rosenberg, N. A. Ronan, K. L.

Haley, J. A. Gervais, and V. Franke. In prep.

Evaluation of methods for estimation of

burrowing owl reproductive rates.

Rosenberg, D., L. Trulio, D. Chromczak, J. Gervais,

K. Haley, and N. Ronan. Unpubl. data. Ecology of

burrowing owls in California. (Data collected at

four sites in California, 1996-2000.)

Rosier, J., N. Ronan, and D. Rosenberg. In revision.

Breeding season survival and dispersal of

Burrowing Owls in an extensive California

Grassland. (Data collected at Carrizo Plain

National Monument.)

Additional Contributors for California State Summary:

John H. Barclay1

Jennifer A. Gervais2

Katherine L. Haley2

Noelle A. Ronan2

Daniel K. Rosenburg3

1 Albion Environmental, Inc., 1414 Soquel Ave., No.

205, Santa Cruz, CA 95062

2 Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 104 Nash

Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331.

3 Department of Forest, Range, and Wildlife

Sciences, 5230 Old Main Hill, Utah State University,

Logan, UT 84322-5230.

44 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Colorado

Summary: Burrowing Owls are a breeding species

across the plains of e. Colorado, with scattered

occurrences in the Grand Valley (wc. Colorado), the

San Luis Valley (sc. Colorado), and South Park (c.

Colorado; Jones 1998). During mild winters, rarely

an individual will winter in Colorado. Based on

survey results of state biologists, James and Espie

(1997) estimated 1,000-10,000 pairs of Burrowing

Owls in Colorado in 1992. Rocky Mountain Bird

Observatory estimated the total Burrowing Owl

population of e. Colorado to be 20,408 individuals

based on driving line transects and 15,796 individuals

based on road-based point counts (Hanni 2001).

Some Colorado counties no longer have Burrowing

Owls where they did occur within recent years

(Andrews and Righter 1992, J. Slater, pers.

commun.).

BBS: No significant trends were detected over any

survey period (Sauer et al. 2002).

CBC: N/A

Atlas: According to the 1998 Colorado Breeding 

Bird Atlas, breeding was confirmed for the species in

18 latilong blocks and four of the ten west slope

latilong blocks in which Burrowing Owls have

occurred historically (Fig. A-3, Jones 1998). They

were found in 40% of the priority blocks in the

eastern plains and the number of blocks with

Burrowing Owls gradually decreased from east to

west and south to north. The distribution of blocks

with Burrowing Owls approximated that found in

1999 surveys by the Rocky Mountain Bird

Observatory (RMBO, formerly Colorado Bird

Observatory) (Hutchings et al. 1999). Jones (1998)

documented breeding in the Grand Valley from

Grand Junction to the Utah border, but not in nw.

Colorado or South and Middle Parks. Burrowing

Owls were recorded in only three blocks in sw.

Colorado and four in the San Luis Valley (Jones

1998). Level of breeding evidence for priority blocks

with Burrowing Owls was 152 confirmed (59%), 54

probable (21%) and 53 possible (20%).

Research/Monitoring Biddle (1996) stated that

burrows which are vacated by prairie dogs soon

become unsuitable to Burrowing Owls as they fall

into disrepair, but also suggested additional

associations between prairie dogs and Burrowing

Owls may decrease the suitability of sites for

breeding in the absence of prairie dogs. From

anecdotal evidence, she found that towns recently

vacated by prairie dogs, yet with available burrows,

did not contain breeding Burrowing Owls. She noted

one town in Logan County, Colorado, had no prairie

dogs or Burrowing Owls in 1994, and breeding

Burrowing Owls were present in 1995 after prairie

dogs recolonized the site. Ongoing research is

continuing at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National

Wildlife Refuge investigating relationships between

prairie dog populations affected by epizootic plagues

and Burrowing Owl populations (M. Hetrick, pers.

commun.).

Lutz and Plumpton (1999) banded 60% of the known

population on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal as either

adults or as nestlings from 1990-94. Most (n = 513;

92%) were never reencountered after the year they

were banded. Of adults banded in 1990, 39%

returned in 1991 while only 5% of chicks banded in

1990 returned (Plumpton and Lutz 1993). Overall, 42

banded Burrowing Owls (8%) returned to the area in

one year and used the area for two-four years (Lutz

and Plumpton 1999). Adult males and females

returned at similar rates (19% and 14%,

respectively). Adult males and females nested in

formerly used sites at similar rates (75% and 63%,

respectively). They found no difference in

productivity between philopatric adults and

presumed new adults; however, past brood size was

greater for females that returned to former nest

sites (mean = 4.9 ± 0.69 young) than for females

that changed nest sites in subsequent years (mean =

2.2 ± 0.79 young; Lutz and Plumpton 1999). Females

banded as nestlings returned as adults after a year

absence from the study area. Males banded as

nestlings returned in the year following hatch, with

one exception. Fledging rate ranged from 0-9 young

per nest (mean = 3.62 ± 0.19 young/nest, n = 167).

The majority of returning adults (66%) reused the

same prairie dog town as the prior year and 90% of

prairie dog towns and 20% of nesting burrows were

reused (Plumpton and Lutz 1993).

Plumpton (1992) found nesting Burrowing Owls

occupied burrows with a shorter distance to the

nearest road, and shorter grass and forb height than

generally available, while using black-tailed prairie

dog towns with greater burrow density and

percentage of bare ground than available.

VerCauteren et al. (In review) found Burrowing Owl

density was inversely related to the area of prairie

dog towns, but total number of Burrowing Owls was

positively related to town size. In concordance with

Plumpton (1992), VerCauteren et al. (In review)

found the number of Burrowing Owls in e. Colorado

was significantly correlated with number of prairie

dogs and number of burrows. Biddle (1996) found the

number of shortgrass patches within 1000 m of

prairie dog towns could be used to predict the

presence of Burrowing Owls in Logan County,

Colorado, with the probability increasing as the

number of patches increased. Plumpton (1992) found

that periodic mowing could maintain vegetation

structure for Burrowing Owls when prairie dogs

were eliminated by epizootics or chemical

extirpation.

Appendix A 45
Fig. A-3. Distribution of Burrowing Owls in Colorado from the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas project

(Jones 1998).

46 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

Conservation Activities: Management efforts

directed toward retention of active prairie dog towns

(Plumpton 1992, Biddle 1996) and cropped vegetation

(<8 cm) by either sciurids or mowing would be

beneficial to nesting Burrowing Owls. The Colorado

Division of Wildlife is planning to implement blacktailed prairie dog conservation efforts (J. Slater,

pers. commun.).

The RMBO manages “Prairie Partners”, a program

that asks for voluntary cooperation from private

landowners to conserve shortgrass prairie birds and

their habitat through effective stewardship

(Hutchings et al. 1999). In 1999, “Prairie Partners”

documented 468 Burrowing Owl locations (79.3% on

public land). Information is provided to landowners

on shortgrass prairie conservation and Burrowing

Owl natural history. The program also provided

information about landowner attitudes toward

Burrowing Owls and prairie dogs.

RMBO published “Sharing Your Land with

Shortgrass Prairie Birds” (Gillihan et al. 2001) which

includes a section on Burrowing Owl identification,

natural history, and habitat requirements and a

booklet focusing on grasslands and grassland birds

for elementary and secondary classroom use

(Hutchings et al. 1999). These materials are being

distributed to landowners, managers, and schools.

Major Populations: Major populations are found at

Rocky Mountain Arsenal in sc. Adams County and

the following counties in Colorado according to

VerCauteren et al. (2001): Baca, Bent, Cheyenne,

Crowley, Kit Carson, Kiowa, Prowers, Pueblo, and

Weld.

State Status: Threatened

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/S4B (S4—widespread,

abundance, and apparently secure in state, with

many occurrences during the breeding season, but

of long-term concern).
Habitat Use and Condition: Habitat on the eastern

plains is generally in good condition, but along the

Front Range it is being rapidly converted to urban

development. With the exception of Comanche and

Pawnee National Grasslands (on the eastern plains),

and a few other state and federal lands, Burrowing

Owl habitat is found mostly on private lands (88% of

eastern Colorado is in private ownership) (J. Slater,

pers. commun.). Habitat loss is responsible for

complete or near extirpation of Burrowing Owls in

some areas; however, some areas have suitable

habitat with no Burrowing Owls, thereby indicating

other factors may be influencing Burrowing Owl

populations in Colorado (Andrews and Righter 1992).

Threats: Rapid urban/suburban/exurban

development along the Front Range of Colorado

(Pueblo to Fort Collins) is reducing Burrowing Owl

habitat by reduction of black-tailed prairie dogs and

their habitat. Furthermore, direct eradication of

prairie dogs is eliminating available burrows and

short vegetation preferred by Burrowing Owls.

Sylvatic plague events in prairie dogs are causing at

least temporary reductions in habitat (J. Slater,

pers. commun.). Increased use of desert areas in the

Grand and Uncompahgre Valleys in w. Colorado has

increase disturbance at many historical sites (R.

Levad, pers. commun.).

The Burrowing Owl is a Colorado Threatened

Species with an increased fine for killing them, but

there are no legal implications for habitat

destruction. The Colorado Division of Wildlife

recommends Burrowing Owl surveys before any

land development occurs and recommends avoidance

measures, but there is no legal requirement to follow

these recommendations (J. Slater, pers. commun.).

Research in Colorado indicated that radiotelemetry

transmitter packages have a significant impact on

Burrowing Owl behavior. Telemetered adults spent

significantly less time resting and alert, and more

time out-of-sight of nest burrows (Plumpton 1992).

Telemetered Burrowing Owls also had significantly

lower productivity than non-telemetered Burrowing

Owls (D. Plumpton, unpubl. data).

Literature Cited:

Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A

reference to their distribution and habitat.

Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver,

Colorado.

Biddle, P. B. 1996. Do landuse patterns influence

Burrowing Owl nest site selection in northeastern

Colorado? M.S. Thesis. Colorado State

University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Gillihan, S. W., D. J. Hanni, S. W. Hutchings, T.

Toombs, and T. VerCauteren. 2001. Sharing your

land with shortgrass prairie birds. Rocky

Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, Colorado.

Hanni, D. J. 2001. Comparison of four methodologies

used to monitor shortgrass prairie birds in

eastern Colorado. Rocky Mountain Bird

Observatory, Brighton, Colorado.

Hutchings, S., M. Carter, E. Atkinson, T.

VerCauteren, C. Finley, S. Gillihan, and J.

Nocedal. 1999. Prairie Partners: Promoting

stewardship of shortgrass prairie. Unpubl. Rep.,

Colorado Bird Observatory, Brighton, Colorado.

James, P. C., and R. H. M. Espie. 1997. Current

status of the Burrowing Owl in North America: an

agency survey. Pages 3-5 in J. Lincer and K.

Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, its biology

and management including the Proceedings of the

First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.

Raptor Research Report Number 9.

Jones, S. R. 1998. Burrowing Owl. Pages 220-221 in

H. E. Kingery, editor. Colorado Breeding Bird

Atlas. Colorado Breeding Birds Atlas Partnership

and Colorado Division of Wildlife.

Lutz, R. S., and D. L. Plumpton. 1999. Philopatry

and nest site reuse by Burrowing Owls:

implications for productivity. Journal of Raptor

Research 33:149-153.

Plumpton, D. L. 1992. Aspects of nest site selection

and habitat use by Burrowing Owls at the Rocky

Mountain Arsenal, Colorado. M.S. Thesis. Texas

Technical University, Lubbock, Texas.

Plumpton, D. L., and R. S. Lutz. 1993. Nesting

habitat use by Burrowing Owls in Colorado.

Journal of Raptor Research 27:175-179.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966-2001. Version 2002.1 U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbr-pwrc.

usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html.

VerCauteren, T. L., S. W. Gillihan, and S. W.

Hutchings. 2001. Distribution of Burrowing Owls

on public and private lands in Colorado. Journal

of Raptor Research 35:357-361.

Appendix A 47
Although a separate subspecies from the Western

Burrowing Owl (A. c. hypugaea), a state summary

for the Florida Burrowing Owl (A. c. floridana) is

included in this document to provide complete

information on the species in the United States.

This state summary is an update of information

included in Millsap (1996).

Florida

Summary: Burrowing Owls are a mostly resident

species primarily from c. Florida southward, though

many northerly breeding birds apparently retreat to

s. Florida during winter. Some breeding occurs

regularly as far north as Duval County (as of 1975)

and as far west as Okaloosa County (Eglin Air Force

Base, as of 1993) in the western part of the Florida

Panhandle. During 1995, a pair of Burrowing Owls

summered but did not successfully breed in Decatur

County, Georgia, near the Florida border,

representing the furthest north breeding season

occurrence, presumably of the Florida subspecies.

The Florida and Bahamas breeding populations have

been named a separate subspecies (A. c. floridana)

from populations in w. North America and

populations elsewhere in the West Indies and South

America (Ridgway 1914, Clark 1997). However,

questions have been raised regarding the validity of

morphological criteria used to determine subspecies

within Burrowing Owls (Millsap 1996), as well as the

identification of some Florida specimens collected

during winter as representative of A. c. hypugaea,

which have been found throughout the state

(Stevenson and Anderson 1994). One female

examined by Millsap from the breeding population in

Okaloosa County exhibited characteristics of

populations from western North America

(Stevenson and Anderson 1994). Millsap (1996)

recommends reevaluation of Burrowing Owl

subspecies based on modern systematic methods,

and some preliminary work in this regard is

underway (Denton et al. In review).

The earliest treatments of Burrowing Owls in

Florida indicated that most were located in the

central Peninsular counties where dry prairies were

most prevalent (Osceola, Okeechobee and DeSoto

counties) and in the Gulf coastal lowlands, with the

Tampa Bay area near the center (Rhodes 1892,

Howell 1932, Bent 1938, Millsap 1996). Burrowing

Owls have declined precipitously in these “natural”

habitats with the loss of Florida prairies since the

late 1800’s (Bent 1938, Nicholson 1954, Owre 1978,

Abrahamsom and Hartnett 1990, Cox et al. 1994,

Stevenson and Anderson 1994, Millsap 1996).

However, the species appears to have expanded

since the 1940’s through to at least the 1970’s by

taking advantage of human altered situations

(airports, some agricultural situations with dirt 

canal banks and road berms, and early stages of

development).

BBS: No significant trends detected for Florida

(Sauer et al. 2002). However, for the few routes

where Burrowing Owls were consistently detected

(10 out of 81 statewide; 7 out of 34 in Peninsular

Florida and 2 out of 10 in Subtropical Florida), the

tendency was for fewer detections over time, but this

may not be reflective of true population trends. High

numbers of Burrowing Owls in Florida are

concentrated in developing areas which are not

generally well represented on BBS routes.

CBC: Insufficient data is available for determining

clear trends from Christmas Bird Count (CBC) data.

Over a three-year period (1993-1996, as a sample),

Burrowing Owls were detected in two years on 11

Counts and in one year on eight Counts, out of a

statewide total of 53 each year. The vast majority of

CBCs each year detected fewer than 15 Burrowing

Owls (8 of 11, 9 of 11, and 6 of 8, respectively). Many

well-known breeding sites consistently fail to detect

any Burrowing Owls during winter indicating either

seasonal movements or an inherent decrease of

detectability from breeding to non-breeding seasons.

This species becomes mostly nocturnal during

winter (Stevenson and Anderson 1994).

Atlas: The Florida Breeding Bird Atlas is

unpublished, but data collected from 1987 – 1991

provide relative recent distributional data statewide.

Atlas data show the Florida Burrowing Owl

occurring over a relatively wide area of the state,

from Madison and Duval counties south to the

middle Keys. Within this broad range, the species

can best be considered local and spotty in

distribution and dependent on the availability of

suitable habitat. During the BBA period, Burrowing

Owls were conspicuously absent from the extensive

wetlands of the Everglades and Big Cypress areas of

South Florida, from the Panhandle, and from much

of the northeastern Atlantic Coast (since then they

have been observed nesting on Eglin AFB in the

Panhandle).

Research/Monitoring There is no statewide

monitoring program for Florida Burrowing Owls.

Several local monitoring efforts have been

undertaken in suburban and ruderal areas where

Burrowing Owls have recently become established.

Through these local monitoring efforts, we know

that populations in many such areas collapse soon

after densely packed housing or other development

dominates the landscape (Courser 1976, Consiglio

and Reynolds 1987, Millsap 1996).

A long-term research project has been underway in

Cape Coral in sw. Florida to better document the

reasons Burrowing Owl populations become

established in some developing areas and then

collapse at some threshold of development. This

research has been undertaken with the goal of

establishing management recommendations for

communities interested in the conservation of this

species (Millsap and Bear 1997, 2000, Millsap 2002).

Burrowing Owls prefer “neighborhoods” when over

48 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
25% of the area is in developed lots but start to

collapse when development exceeds 60%, possibly

irretrievably so when over 70% of the area is in

developed lots. Millsap (2002), presents data that

adult males, adult females, and juveniles respond

differently to landscape features in terms of survival

and emigration. This complex situation requires

more study, but it appears that some desirable level

of development through zoning may allow for

reasonably large and stable Burrowing Owl

populations to persist within urban-suburban

landscapes.

Conservation Activities: Active education programs

appear to be working in Cape Coral to reduce

harassment, and resulting nest failure, of Burrowing

Owls. Most documented harassment is linked to

school-aged children. The implementation of a

formal “mandatory” Burrowing Owl education

program in Cape Coral public schools has coincided

with increasing local nesting success (Millsap and

Bear 2000; similar results in Broward County have

been reported, Consiglio and Reynolds 1987).

Millsap and Bear (2000) also suggested buffer zones

be established by the City of Cape Coral or

developers, which can be useful in shielding owls

from disturbance where construction is underway

during the nesting season. They suggested a

minimum of a 10-m buffer may be effective, but

larger buffers are likely better. Finally, they

suggested the most important conservation actions

municipalities may undertake is to develop

conservation agreements with the managers of

public facilities such as schools, athletic fields,

churches, parks, libraries, and office building

complexes that provide open grounds necessary for

Burrowing Owl habitat.

Although Burrowing Owl populations using urbansuburban environments have received much recent

attention, it is still necessary to conserve populations

persisting in natural habitats, especially Florida’s

dry prairies. Cox et al. (1994) used a combination of

Breeding Bird Atlas (Kale et al. 1992) information

and overlay of existing dry prairie acreage to

address the site protection needs for this and other

dry prairie associated species. They concluded that

the greatest opportunities to conserve natural

habitat for Burrowing Owl specifically on already

identified conservation areas included the

Kissimmee Prairie region, with Avon Park Air Force

Range, Audubon Kissimmee Prairie Preserve,

Arbuckle State Forest, and Three Lakes State

Wildlife Management Area. This region supports

key sites maintaining a large viable population of

Burrowing Owls within historically important

habitats. Outside existing conservation lands, there

are patches of native dry prairie that could also be

important for linking all the region’s potentially

isolated subpopulations together if these sites

receive long-term protection from conversion. The

priority sites include patches between Avon Park Air

Force Range and Lake Kissimmee and between

Avon Park Air Force Range and Three Lakes State

Wildlife Management Area. With these connections

in place, this entire region could constitute one large

Florida Burrowing Owl population (Cox et al. 1994).

Two other concentration areas exist, worthy of

conservation attention (Cox et al. 1994). The Miami

Ridge presently supports sizeable population of

Burrowing Owls in se. Florida, but these largely

agricultural lands are quickly progressing towards

urban-suburban development. Experiences in other

similarly developing areas like Cape Coral may be

useful for conserving these populations into the

future. The last large concentration area considered

here is along the western shore of Lake Okeechobee,

which includes patches of remnant dry prairie and

expansive agricultural lands, both which can provide

suitable habitat for Burrowing Owls (Abrahamson

and Hartlett 1990). Working in cooperation with

private landowners is essential to conserve these

isolated prairie remnants and the species dependent

upon them, including Florida Burrowing Owls (see

also Cox et al. 1994).

Major Populations: Bowen (2000) conducted a

metapopulation analysis of Florida Burrowing Owls,

which identified eight major subpopulations and 59

metapopulations in Florida (Table A-3). All major

subpopulations were in south Florida, but the

population on Eglin Air Force Base in the Panhandle

is probably large enough to warrant inclusion here.

Other central and north Florida metapopulations

were present in 26 counties, but these were

generally small in size, probably isolated, and had

high predicted probabilities of extirpation.

State Status: Species of Special Concern (Millsap

1996; ranked by Millsap et al. 1990, with a Biological

Score of 24). Burrowing Owls and their nests are

protected by Commission rules (Chapter 39, Florida

Administrative Code) and federal rules promulgated

under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-

712). The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission requires that a permit be obtained from

the agency before a Florida Burrowing Owl nest

burrow can be destroyed.

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/S3 (Rare and uncommon

in the state, Florida Natural Areas Inventory 2001)

Habitat Use and Condition: Habitat is best defined as

very open well-drained treeless country, with short

grassy or herbaceous vegetation maintained by

regular and frequent grazing, mowing, or burning.

Soil needs to be of a quality for Burrowing Owls to

easily dig and maintain burrows. Although burrows

of gopher tortoises or large fossorial mammals are

used occasionally, in Florida most burrows used are

dug by Burrowing Owls themselves.

These requirements were met historically in Florida

on the dry prairies of the central peninsula in the

vicinity of burns and along the edges of wetlands

during dry periods (Howell 1932, Bent 1938, Millsap

1996). Land clearing and extensive drainage of

Appendix A 49
wetlands have led to expansion of habitat especially

since the 1940’s. Burrowing Owls still occur in

remnant patches of dry prairie, but even here they

are more often than not associated with canal banks

and road berms even in otherwise “natural” habitat.

The above habitat conditions are also featured in

pastures converted to non-native grasses, airports,

golf courses, athletic fields, and partially developed

residential and industrial areas where expanses of

mowed lawn and ruderal grassland are maintained

(Millsap 1996).

Threats: Continued loss of native dry prairie habitat

is a serious threat to many endemic taxa in Florida,

but cumulative loss of this habitat is mitigated for

Florida Burrowing Owls to a degree as they make

use of a variety of altered situations. However, these

altered habitats may be exposed to increased use of

harmful chemicals, increased presence of predators

(including domestic as well as feral and native),

human harassment, and in some areas fire ants. In

developed areas, most documented mortality is

associated with vehicular collisions (Mealey 1997,

Millsap 2002).

Although there is good evidence that a moderate

degree of development in some areas can support

large Florida Burrowing Owl populations, too much

development leads eventually to population collapse.

Habitat set aside programs will be needed to ensure

long-term persistence for most of these populations

(Millsap 1996).

Millsap (1996) concluded that Florida Burrowing

Owls did not appear to warrant further legal

protection at that time, but recommended continued

or expanded monitoring of local populations,

especially in urban-suburban environments. The

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

will be collecting data to determine if current

management actions are maintaining population

numbers in Cape Coral, perhaps the most significant

subpopulation.

Recommendation on Current Status for the Florida

Burrowing Owl: Population trend data are lacking or

insufficient for Burrowing Owls in Florida. Limited

data indicate that it is decreasing in some areas, but

also has stable or increasing populations in others.

The Florida Burrowing Owl continues to occupy the

majority of its historical range and may have

expanded into new areas. However, historical and

continuing loss and reduction of dry prairies and an

unclear future of urban/suburban population centers

are the primary threats to this subspecies in Florida.

Currently, the Burrowing Owl is listed by the

USFWS as a Bird of Conservation Concern-2002

(U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2002) in the Peninsular

Florida and Southeastern Coastal Plain Bird

Conservation Regions and in the USFWS Region 4

(Southeast Region). This designation is intended to

stimulate collaborative, proactive conservation

actions among public and private land managers 

and other partners. Recommended conservation

measures include efforts to more accurately monitor

population demographics and trends, and to better

understand factors affecting populations now

concentrated in urban/suburban areas of 

Peninsular Florida.

The Migratory Bird Management program of the

USFWS recommends retaining the Florida

Burrowing Owl on the BCC lists on which it

currently appears. The listing of the Florida

Burrowing Owl as a Bird of Conservation Concern

highlights its potential vulnerability and need for

increased monitoring and conservation attention by

multiple Federal and State agencies and private

organizations. The success of these efforts will be

reviewed every five years as the Birds of

Conservation Concern list is revised (U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service 2002).

50 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

Table A-3. Distribution and abundance of Florida Burrowing Owls by major subpopulation and county.

Est. population

Subpopulation County size (no. adults) Source

Wellington Aerofield and golf course Palm Beach 63 Bowen (2000)

Boynton Beach subdivisions Palm Beach 64 Bowen (2000)

Pompano Beach Airport Broward 69 Bowen (2000)

Ft. Lauderdale Executive Airport Broward 77 Bowen (2000)

Cooper City, Penbrooke Pines, Davie Broward 189 Bowen (2000)

Punta Gorda Charlotte 37 Bowen (2000)

Cape Coral Lee 756 Bowen (2000)

Marco Island Collier 47 Bowen (2000)

Eglin Air Force Base Santa Rosa and Okaloosa 25 Millsap (pers. obs.)
Literature Cited:

Abrahamson, W. G. and D. C. Hartnett. 1990. Pine

flatwoods and dry prairies. Pages 103-149 in R. L.

Myers and J. J. Ewel, editors. Ecosystems of

Florida. University of Central Florida Press,

Orlando, Florida.

Bent, A. C. 1938. Life histories of North American

birds of prey. Part 2. U.S. National Museum

Bulletin No. 170.

Bowen, P. 2000. Demographic, distribution, and

metapopulation analyses of the burrowing owl

(Athene cunicularia) in Florida. M.S. Thesis,

University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.

Clark, R. J. 1997. A review of the taxonomy and

distribution of the Burrowing Owl (Speotyto

cunicularia). Journal of Raptor Research Report

9:14-23.

Consiglio, B., and G. Reynolds. 1987. Broward’s

Burrowing Owl watchers. Florida Naturalist 

60:3-5.

Couser, W. D. 1976. A population study of the

Burrowing Owl near Tampa, Florida. M.S. Thesis,

University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.

Cox, J., R. Kautz, M. Mac Laughlin, and T. Gilbert.

1994. Closing the gaps in Florida’s wildlife habitat

conservation system. Florida Game and Fresh

Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida.

Denton, W., Q. Q. Fang, R. Chandler, and B. A.

Millsap. In review. Genetic variations among

populations of Florida borrowing owls using

single strand-conformation polymorphism.

Georgia Southern University, Statesboro,

Georgia.

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.

1990. Official lists of endangered and potentially

endangered fauna and flora in Florida. 1 August

1990. Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2001.Tracked

species—vertebrates. FNAI, Tallahassee,

Florida.

Howell, A. H. 1932. Florida bird life. CowardMcCann, New York, New York.

Kale, H. W., II, B. Pranty. B. Stith, and W. Biggs.

1992. An atlas of Florida’s breeding birds. Final

Report. Nongame Wildlife Program, Florida

Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,

Tallahassee, Florida.

Mealey, B. 1997. Reproductive ecology of the

Burrowing Owls, Speotyto cunicularia floridana,

in Dade and Broward Counties, Florida. Journal

of Raptor Research Report 9:74-79.

Millsap, B. A. 1996. Florida Burrowing Owl. Pages

579-587 in J. A. Rodgers, Jr., H. W. Kale II, and

H. T. Smith, editors. Rare and Endangered Biota

of Florida, Vol V. Birds. University Press of

Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Millsap, B. A. 2002. Survival of Florida Burrowing

Owls along an urban development gradient.

Journal of Raptor Research 36:3-10.

Millsap, B. A., and C. Bear. 1997. Territory fidelity,

mate fidelity, and dispersal in an urban-nesting

population of Florida Burrowing Owls. Journal of

Raptor Research Report 9:91-98.

Millsap, B. A., and C. Bear. 2000. Density and

reproduction of Burrowing Owls along an urban

development gradient. Journal of Wildlife

Management 64:33-41.

Millsap, B. A., J. A. Gore, D. E. Runde, and S. I.

Cerulean. 1990. Setting priorities for the

conservation of fish and wildlife species in

Florida. Wildlife Monographs No. 111.

Nicholson, D. J. 1954. The Florida Burrowing Owl; a

vanishing species. Florida Naturalist 27:3-4.

Owre, O. T. 1978. Florida Burrowing Owl. Pages 97-

99 in H. W. Kale II, ed. Rare and endangered

biota of Florida. Volume 2 birds. University

Presses of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Rhodes, S. N. 1892. The breeding habits of the

Florida Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia

floridana). Auk:9:1-8.

Ridgway, R. 1914. The birds of North and Middle

America. Part IV. U.S. National Museum Bulletin

No. 50.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966-2001. Version 2002.1, U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbr-pwrc.

usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html.

Stevenson, H. M., and B. H. Anderson. 1994. The

birdlife of Florida. University Press of Florida,

Gainesville, Florida.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of

Conservation Concern 2002. U.S. Department of

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Administrative

Report, Arlington, Virginia.

Appendix A 51
Wesemann, T. 1986. Factors influencing the

distribution and abundance of Burrowing Owls

(Athene cunicularia ) in Cape Coral, Florida.

M.S. Thesis. Appalachian State University,

Boone, North Carolina.

Wesemann, T., and M. Rowe. 1987. Factors

influencing the distribution and abundance of

Burrowing Owls in Cape Coral, Florida. Pages

129-137 in L. W. Adams and D. L. Leedy, editors.

Integrating man and nature in the metropolitan

environment. Proceedings of the national

symposium on urban wildlife. National Institute

for Urban Wildlife, Columbia, Maryland.

Additional Authors for Florida State Summary:

Brian A. Millsap, Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission, 620 S. Meridian St.,

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600.

(Current address: Division of Migratory Bird

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

4401 N. Fairfax Drive MS 634, Arlington, VA

22203)

William C. Hunter, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

1875 Century Blvd., Suite 240, Atlanta, GA 30345.

52 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Idaho

Summary: Burrowing Owls are a locally common

summer resident in s. Idaho. The only evidence that

the species ever occurred in n. Idaho is a statement

by Merriam in 1891 that it was reported by Bendire

as nesting at Fort Lapwai (Nez Perce County)

(Burleigh 1972). Birds arrive in s. Idaho in early

March and young have been observed near natal

burrows as early as 10 June and as late as 17

September (Rich 1986). Populations are believed to

be generally increasing (K. Steenhof, pers. commun.)

Current distribution and relative abundance

information has been well documented for several

small scale study areas on the Snake River Plain and

vicinity. James and Espie (1997) estimated 1,000 to

10,000 pairs in Idaho based on a survey of state

wildlife agencies in 1992. Habitat loss and possible

impacts to local populations from agricultural

activities have been noted (Rich 1986, James and

Espie 1997). However, the extent to which

agriculture and other habitat disturbances have

impacted Burrowing Owl populations is unknown as

the species nests in close proximity to cultivated

fields in the Snake River Plain, roadsides (Belthoff

and King 1997), firing ranges (Lehman et al. 1999),

and other disturbed areas in and around sagebrushsteppe habitat (Rich 1986).

BBS: Significantly increasing trends were detected

for all survey periods: 1966-2001 (Trend = 19.1, P

<0.07, n = 9); 1966-1979 (Trend = 39.2, P <0.03, n =

3), and 1980-2001 (Trend = 28.4, P <0.06, n = 9).

Data credibility is low due to small sample sizes and

high variance (Sauer et al. 2002).

CBC: N/A

Atlas: Historical and current records of Burrowing

Owls in Idaho documented confirmed breeding in 12

out of 29 latilong blocks, predominantly in s. Idaho

(Stevens and Struts 1991). Circumstantial evidence

of breeding Burrowing Owls is recorded for two

additional latilong blocks including the single

historical account of a nesting pair in n. Idaho on

Fort Lapwai, Nez Perce County as reported in

Burleigh (1972).

Research/Monitoring Rich (1986) investigated

vegetative and topographical characteristics around

80 occupied Burrowing Owl nest sites in the

sagebrush-steppe of sc. Idaho. Burrowing Owls used

burrows provided by badgers in open soil. In small

lava outcrops, Burrowing Owls exhibited a

preference for burrows excavated by yellow-bellied

marmots. Cover within a 50-m radius of 80 occupied

burrows was mainly bare earth, cheatgrass, rock,

and annual forbs. In comparison to randomly chosen

sites, occupied sites had a greater cover of

cheatgrass, greater habitat diversity, were lower in

elevation, and were more frequently located on

southerly aspects. Occupied sites had less acreage of

farmland and big sagebrush compared to unoccupied

sites. Burrow security and prey availability,

especially the proximity to populations of montane

voles on farmland, may explain some of the habitat

selection observed (Rich 1986).

Gleason and Johnson (1985) found that 75% of the

nesting pairs used burrows excavated by badgers

and the remainder occupied natural cavities in lava

flows. Density was 1 pair/58 km2. Average

productivity was 3.6 young/nesting pair. Weather

and diet influenced productivity with average

productivity in a normal precipitation year (1976)

and low productivity during drought (1977). Of 22

mortalities (two nestlings, 15 juveniles, and five

adults), six (27%) were from vehicle collisions.

Badger predation was presumed to be significant

prior to emergence of young from nest burrows, but

most mortality occurred after fledging when young

were most likely vulnerable to starvation. Gleason

and Johnson (1985) also found large portions of the

study area lacked Burrowing Owls apparently due to

factors other than the availability of nest sites.

Lehman et al. (1998, 1999) studied 235 Burrowing

Owl nesting attempts between 1991-1994 on the

Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation

Area (SRBPNCA), in sw. Idaho. Nest success was

studied in relationship to disturbance caused by

military training activities in the Orchard Training

Area (OTA) in the SRBPNCA. There were no

significant differences in nest success between nests

located within versus outside of the OTA. Since most

military activity occurred after Burrowing Owls

established nesting areas and laid eggs, Lehman et

al. (1999) suggested that military activity did not

play an important direct role in the distribution of

raptor nests in the OTA. Furthermore, direct impact

to nests was restricted to a relatively small

proportion of nesting pairs each year. If confirmation

of nesting is made when young emerge from

burrows, Mayfield estimates of nest success are

likely to be inflated as they were in this study (100%,

as all nests found at this stage were successful).

Other methods of estimating nest success yielded

lower estimates (64-71%, Lehman et al. 1998). Rate

of nest reoccupancy in this study was 11% from 1991

to 1992, and 42% from 1993 to 1994.

In sw. and sc. Idaho, Belthoff and King (1997)

reported nest success was 94.4% with 4.6 ± 1.8

young/nest in the Kuna Butte area (Ada County) and

92.9% with 5.1 ± 2.4 young/nest the Grand View area

(Elmore County). Radio-tagged Burrowing Owls

dispersed an average of 1.4 km from natal burrows

during the post-fledging period (Belthoff et al. 1995).

Turnover of individuals in the Kuna Butte area

appeared to be relatively high based on low rates of

return by both adults and young. Of 52 nestling

Burrowing Owls banded in the Kuna Butte study

area in 1995, two (one male, one female) were

detected in the area in 1996. These owls bred 1.8 and

4.8 km from their natal burrows. Of five adult males

banded as breeders during 1995, two returned in

1996 and used the same burrows but acquired

Appendix A 53
different mates. Of 14 adult females banded in 1995,

two returned to breed in 1996 and used burrows 106

m and 503 m from their 1995 burrows. Mate

retention was uncertain with these females. Belthoff

and King (1997) felt the difference in return rates

between adults was a result of greater female

dispersal rather than increased mortality.

Individual burrows were frequently reoccupied in

multiple years (Belthoff and King 1997). Of 30 known

nest burrows in 1994-95, 50% were reused in a

subsequent year. Five burrows were used for

nesting in all three years of study and nine others

were used for at least two years. Of 10 burrows that

fledged young in 1994, 70% were reused at least

once. Conversely, burrows tended to remain

unoccupied in years following nest failures; six nests

remained unused in 1995-96 after failing in 1994

(Belthoff and King 1997).

In another study of nest reoccupancy, Rich (1984)

found that 69.4% of previously documented nest

burrows were reoccupied. Burrows in rock outcrops

were reused 57.5% of the time compared to 31.4% for

nests in soil mounds. Outcrop sites also were used

more often in consecutive years; 23 were used for

two years, and 12 were used for three consecutive

years. Fifteen mound nests were used for two years,

five were used for three years, and one was used four

consecutive years. Greater reuse of outcrop sites

was likely related to security; no burrows in

outcrops were destroyed while 26 old badger

burrows containing nests were filled in by plowing,

cattle trampling, drifting sand, dredging, and other

unknown causes (Rich 1984). It was unclear why

some burrows were not used more regularly, as the

changing of burrows could not be attributed to

burrow characteristics or to changes in the

surrounding habitat. Regardless of an abundance of

burrows in suitable habitat, some Burrowing Owls

apparently relocate from year to year.

Major Populations: Rich (1986) documented 242

occupied Burrowing Owl nests between 1976-83 in

sc. Idaho. Lehman et al. (1999) documented 235

Burrowing Owl nest attempts between 1991-94 on

and near the OTA, also on the SRBPNCA. In sw.

Idaho (Ada and Elmore counties), Belthoff and King

(1997) located 30 Burrowing Owl burrows in 1994-

1995. In se. Idaho, Gleason and Johnson (1985) found

average densities of 1 pair/58 km2

.

State Status: Protected Nongame Species. No person

shall take or possess protected nongame species

including nests and eggs at any time or in any

manner, subject to fine and possible imprisonment

(Idaho Statutes 36-1102 & 36-1402). Habitat

protection is not included in State protection law.

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/S3S4 (S3—rare and

uncommon in the state, S4—widespread, abundant,

and apparently secure in state, with many

occurrences, but of long-term concern).

Habitat Use and Condition: On the SRBNCA, 77% of

Burrowing Owl nest sites had farmland within a 693

m radius (Rich 1986). Hay was a common crop and

variation in cutting dates made rodents readily

available throughout the Burrowing Owl breeding

season.

Sagebrush is an important habitat type on occupied

sites along the Snake River; however, continuous

stands of dense sagebrush (10-35% canopy cover)

were not occupied by Burrowing Owls (Rich 1986).

Also in s. Idaho, 30 of 36 occupied Burrowing Owl

nests were located within l00 m of sagebrush (Rich

1986).

Belthoff and King (1997) found that fires did not

adversely affect Burrowing Owls in their study area.

All nest sites which burned in 1995 were reoccupied

in 1996. Several additional burrows within burned

areas (but with unknown histories) were occupied by

Burrowing Owls in 1996. The fires did not cause

direct mortality of adult or juvenile Burrowing Owls

(already of fledging age). These owls were

repeatedly observed at burned sites for several

weeks after fires. Also, juvenile owls from other

families dispersed into burned areas immediately

following fires in 1995 (Belthoff and King 1997).

Burrowing Owls in sw. Idaho nested in sites close to

roads and agricultural fields, and in areas containing

exotic plant species such as cheatgrass, tumble

mustard, and annual wheatgrass (Belthoff and King

1997). Rich (1986) found that cover within 50 m of the

burrows indicated that sites had been disturbed by

fire and grazing. However, the dominant plants were

not indicative of the highest degree of disturbance

possible in sagebrush-steppe habitats (Rich 1986).

Threats: Invasion of shrubby species may contribute

to population declines (Rich 1986). Belthoff and King

(1997) noted nest burrows destroyed by agriculture

and fire rehabilitation. Natural habitat has

decreased due to increasing use of irrigation and the

growing importance of agriculture in the state

(Burleigh 1972). Soil mound nests were destroyed by

plowing, cattle trampling, drifting sand, dredging,

and other unknown causes (Rich 1984).

54 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Literature Cited:

Belthoff, J. R., R. A. King, J. Doremus, and T. Smith.

1995. Monitoring post-fledging Burrowing Owls in

southwestern Idaho. U.S. Bureau of Land

Management, Idaho State Office, Technical

Bulletin No. 95-8.

Belthoff, J. R., and R. A. King. 1997. Between-year

movements and nest burrow use by Burrowing

Owls in southwestern Idaho. Technical Bulletin

No. 97-3, Idaho Bureau of Land Management.

Burleigh, T. D. 1972. Burrowing Owl. pp. 168-169 in

Birds of Idaho. Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell,

Idaho.

Gleason, R. S., and D. R. Johnson. 1985. Factors

influencing nesting success of Burrowing Owls in

southeastern Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist 45:81-

84.

James, P. C., and R. H. M. Espie. 1997. Current

status of the Burrowing Owl in North America: an

agency survey. Pages 3-5 in J. Lincer and K.

Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, its biology

and management including the Proceedings of the

First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.

Raptor Research Report Number 9.

Lehman, R. N., L. B. Carpenter, K. Steenhof, and M.

N. Kochert. 1998. Assessing relative abundance

and reproductive success of shrubsteppe raptors.

Journal of Field Ornithology 69:244-256.

Lehman, R. N., K. Steenhof, M. N. Kochert, and L.

B. Carpenter. 1999. Effects of military training

activities on shrub-steppe raptors in

southwestern Idaho, USA. Environmental

Management 23:409-417.

Rich, T. 1984. Monitoring Burrowing Owl

populations: implications of burrow re-use.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:178-180.

Rich, T. 1986. Habitat and nest-site selection by

Burrowing Owls in the sagebrush steppe of

Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:548-

555.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966–2001. Version 2002.1, U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbr-pwrc.

usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html.

Stevens, D.A. and S. H. Struts 1991. Idaho Bird

Distribution. Idaho Museum of Natural History.

Special Publication No. 11.

Appendix A 55
Iowa

Summary: Northwest Iowa is on the eastern edge of

the Burrowing Owl range. There is little to suggest

that this species was ever common; the pattern of

occurrence suggests periods of range expansion and

regression. Some birds nested in the 1960s and 1980s

(Dinsmore et al. 1984). Tallgrass prairie in the presettlement era was likely too dense for Burrowing

Owls. To date, most records have been in

pasturelands (J. Dinsmore, pers. commun.).

BBS: N/A

CBC: N/A

Atlas: Only a single record for the Burrowing Owl

was reported (J. Dinsmore, pers. commun.).

Research/Monitoring Monitoring is restricted to

reports from birdwatchers and incidental

observations by biologists. No database for records

is known. Not actively monitored by Iowa

Department of Fish and Wildlife personnel (D.

Howell, pers. commun.).

Conservation Activities: None reported.

Major Populations: None.

State Status: Placed in original Threatened list in

1977 due to low abundance; removed and designated

Accidental Breeder in 1994 (D. Howell, pers.

commun.).

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/SAB (Accidental breeder)

Habitat Use and Condition: Burrowing Owls are

found in grasslands and pastures (Dinsmore et al.

1984). Pasturelands are preferred over ungrazed

tallgrass prairie due to excessive cover on the latter.

Most native prairie is under intense rowcrop

agriculture, and is unsuitable, but no records exist to

indicate the species was ever common.

Threats: Remnant tallgrass prairies provide

unsuitable habitat due to excessive cover. Potential

Burrowing Owl habitat has been lost to rowcrop

agriculture (J. Dinsmore, pers. commun.).

Literature Cited:

Dinsmore, J. J., and T. H. Kent, D. Koenig, P. C.

Peterson, and D. M. Roosa. 1984. Iowa Birds.

Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.

56 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Kansas

Summary: Little data regarding Burrowing Owls in

Kansas is available. Reports indicate it was

“abundant” and “common” in the late 1800s in c. and

w. Kansas. Burrowing Owls are currently considered

uncommon summer residents in w. Kansas, but may

be common in local areas. Prairie dogs have been

nearly extirpated from many counties in c. Kansas,

and sightings of Burrowing Owls are very localized.

State agencies in 1992 reported the Burrowing Owl

populations as between 100 and 1000 pairs, but

decreasing due to reduced burrow availability

(James and Espie 1997); however, this population

estimate is disputed and believed to be in the 1,000 to

10,000 pair category (W. Busby, pers. commun.).

BBS: No significant trends were detected over any

survey period (Sauer et al. 2002).

CBC: N/A

Atlas: Burrowing Owls were confirmed in 46 blocks,

with probable and possible breeding occurring in 29

and 25 blocks, respectively (Fig. A-4). Burrowing

Owls were observed only in the western half of the

state where occurrences generally coincided with

remaining areas of shortgrass prairie (Busby and

Zimmerman 2001).

Research/Monitoring Burrowing Owl research and

monitoring in Kansas is limited to natural history

accounts and the Breeding Bird Survey which is too

imprecise to detect population trends in this state.

Conservation Activities: None documented.

Major Populations: Burrowing Owl populations are

highest in the shortgrass prairie region of Kansas.

One of the state’s largest populations is at Cimarron

National Grassland in southwestern Kansas (W.

Busby, pers. commun.).

State Status: No special status designated.

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/S3B, SZN (rare and

uncommon breeding populations in the state, no nonbreeding occurrences).

Habitat Use and Condition: Not reported.

Threats: Prairie dog populations and associated

Burrowing Owl habitat appear stable although at

levels far below historic levels. In the long term,

increases in prairie dog populations are needed to

create more Burrowing Owl habitat (W. Busby, pers.

commun.).

Literature Cited:

Busby, W. H., and J. L. Zimmerman. 2001 The

Kansas Breeding Bird Atlas. University Press of

Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.

James, P. C., and R. H. M. Espie. 1997. Current

status of the Burrowing Owl in North America: an

agency survey. Pages 3-5 in J. Lincer and K.

Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, its biology

and management including the Proceedings of the

First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.

Raptor Research Report Number 9.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966-2001. Version 2002.1, U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbr-pwrc.

usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html.

Appendix A 57
Fig. A-4. Distribution of Burrowing Owls in Kansas from the Kansas Breeding Bird Atlas project (Busby

and Zimmerman 2001).

58 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Minnesota

Summary: The Burrowing Owl was a regular to

common breeding bird in the prairies of w.

Minnesota in the first half of the century, but began

to decline between approximately 1940 and 1960. The

Burrowing Owl is now considered a very rare or

casual resident in the sw. and wc. regions. Only ten

documented breeding records exist from 1965-1985

(Janssen 1987, Martell et al. 2001). Reintroduction

attempts from 1986-90 were unsuccessful; no

returning Burrowing Owls were found in the years

subsequent to release. Also, no successful natural

nests were documented in 1992-98, despite

significant efforts to locate the species (Martell et al.

2001).

BBS: N/A

CBC: N/A

Atlas: Unknown

Research/Monitoring Martell et al. (2001) located 13

natural nests at eight sites in Rock, Pipestone,

Travers, and Yellow Medicine Counties, Minnesota

during 1986-1990. Mean reproductive success was

3.54 young/pair. Nesting habitats included alfalfa

fields (37.5%), pasture, (37.5%), roadside ditch

(12.5%), and fenceline (12.5%).

During 1986-1990, 105 pre-flight juvenile Burrowing

Owls were released (9 in 1986, 18 in 1987, 21 in 1988,

27 in 1989, and 30 in 1990). Eight fledgling

mortalities were documented in the release area. No

individuals were relocated after leaving the hack site

and no successful nesting attempts were

documented 1991-1998 (Martell et al. 2001).

Conservation Activities: Reintroduction of

Burrowing Owls was attempted within the historic

range in w. Minnesota from 1986-90 (Martell et al.

2001) but discontinued since no owls returned to

breed in subsequent years. Land management

reported in Martell et al. (2001) focused on

protection and enhancement of nesting sites.

Landowners were encouraged to maintain fields

used by nesting Burrowing Owls in current rotations

(e.g., alfalfa) or to enroll those fields in federal

agricultural set-aside programs. In 1989, 24 artificial

nest burrows were installed near natural burrows to

provide alternate nest sites for returning pairs of

owls or their offspring. One pair of owls nested and

fledged seven young from an artificial burrow the

year after their natural burrow collapsed. The

artificial structure was located in the same field,

approximately 40 m from the original burrow

(Henderson 1984, Martell et al. 2001).

No management or research is currently planned

beyond protection under current state and federal

legislation (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act,

Minnesota Endangered Species Act). Should this

situation change, habitat protection, management,

and public education and cooperation will remain

important. Selective use of reintroductions may also

be useful in enhancing these efforts (Martell et al.

2001).

Major Populations: None. The Burrowing Owl is

considered a very rare or casual resident in the sw.

and wc. regions of Minnesota.

State Status: Endangered

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/S1 (Critically imperiled

because of extreme rarity or other factor making it

especially vulnerable to extirpation)

Habitat Use and Condition: In Minnesota, Burrowing

Owls typically select heavily grazed pasture or

mixed-grass prairie with colonies of Richardson’s

ground squirrels (Coffin and Pfannmuller 1988).

Martell et al. (2001) reported nesting Burrowing

Owls in alfalfa fields, suggesting some potential

adaptability to agricultural habitats. Loss of

pastures and prairies in western Minnesota has been

a factor in the decline of Burrowing Owls in the

state. However, some seemingly suitable habitat

remains unused.

Threats: Loss of prairie and pasture habitats

represent the primary threat to Burrowing Owls in

Minnesota (Grant 1965, Martell et al. 2001).

Literature Cited:

Coffin, B., and L. Pfannmuller. 1988. Burrowing Owl.

Page 264 in Minnesota’s Endangered Flora and

Fauna. B. Coffin and L. Pfannmuller, editors.

University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis,

Minnesota.

Grant, R. A. 1965. The Burrowing Owl in Minnesota.

Loon 37:2-17.

Henderson, C. L. 1984. Woodworking for wildlife:

homes for birds and mammals. Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul,

Minnesota.

Janssen, R. B. 1987. Birds in Minnesota. University

of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.

Martell, M. S., J. Schladweiler, and F. Cuthbert.

2001. Status and attempted reintroduction of

Burrowing Owls in Minnesota, USA. Journal of

Raptor Research 35:331-336.

Appendix A 59
Montana

Summary: The Burrowing Owl is a rare breeder in

Montana. The majority of confirmed Burrowing Owl

breeding records are east of the continental divide in

association with black-tailed prairie dog and

Richardson’s ground squirrel colonies. Breeding

west of the continental divide is probably associated

with badger-enlarged Columbian ground squirrel

burrows.

Marti and Marks (1989) reported the Burrowing Owl

as common in Montana with a stable population

trend from 1977-86. However, no records for number

of nesting pairs or number of nest sites were

reported. Based on a survey of state wildlife

agencies, James and Espie (1997) estimated 100 to

1,000 pairs of Burrowing Owls in Montana in 1992

with a stable population trend. Atkinson (2000)

estimated 644 ± 114 Burrowing Owl pairs in known

prairie dog colonies in Montana.

BBS: No significant trends were detected over any

survey period (Sauer et al. 2002).

CBC: N/A

Atlas: No atlas available. The Montana Bird

Distribution shows evidence of breeding in 25

latilongs and indirect evidence in an additional 13

latilongs between 1991-95 (Fig. A-5). Nonbreeding

observations encompass another 7 latilongs and there

were no records of Burrowing Owls in 2 latilongs

(Montana Bird Distribution Committee 1996).

Research/Monitoring Atkinson (2000) derived an

estimate of Burrowing Owl population size through

analyses of the one-stage stratified random sample

obtained from surveys in 1999. Surveyors detected

474 owls with at least 123 pairs; occupancy rate was

38.2% (78 of 204 colonies). Atkinson (2000) estimated

the Burrowing Owl population size at 644 ± 114 pairs

in known prairie dog colonies in Montana. As

supporting evidence, Atkinson (2000) estimated 819

pairs by direct extrapolation of the pair density (123

pairs / 10,079 acres) from surveyed colonies to the

known colony acreage statewide (67,080 acres). In

identical fashion, he estimated 787 pairs by

extrapolating 123 pairs / 209 colonies to 1,337 known

colonies. Atkinson (2000) stated that c. Montana, the

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge

(NWR), the Custer area in Custer and Prairie

counties, s. Chouteau County, and Phillips County

were adequately sampled. Parts of Wheatland

County, the Northern Cheyenne and Fort Belknap

reservations, and Rosebud and s. Custer counties

were not adequately sampled in 1999.

A population estimate of 864 Burrowing Owl pairs

was derived for four study areas in eastern Montana

(Fort Belknap Reservation, South Phillips County,

Custer Creek, and Northern Cheyenne Reservation.

Restani et al. (2001) documented one Burrowing

Owl pair/110 ha of prairie dog town habitat in

southeastern Montana in 1998. Prairie dog towns

occupied by Burrowing Owls were similar in size to

unoccupied towns and no selection was

demonstrated for or against towns subjected to

recreational shooting or grazing. Occupied nests

were closer to active prairie dog burrows than

random locations; otherwise Burrowing Owl nest

sites were not different than random sites in

numerous habitat characteristics (Atkinson 2000,

Restani et al. 2001).

Mean Burrowing Owl productivity was 2.6 ± 0.4

young/pair (n = 13) and was not correlated with

number of active or inactive burrows, total number

of burrows, or town size (Restani et al. 2001).

Productivity was not influenced by recreational

prairie dog shooting (2.3 young/pair on shot towns;

2.9 young/pair elsewhere).

Prairie dog towns were similar in size and mean

burrow density in 1991 and 1998; however, total

acreage of prairie dog habitat increased slightly

(Restani et al. 2001). Burrowing Owls were present

at 16% of prairie dog towns surveyed in 1998

compared to 4% in 1996 (Wittenhagen and Tribby

1996), 14%, in 1991 (Richardson and Tribby 1991), and

27 % in 1978-79 (Restani et al. 2001, Knowles In

review). Restani et al. (2001) felt the low density of

breeding owls, high nearest neighbor distances, and

abundant unoccupied habitat suggested the

Burrowing Owl population was well below carrying

capacity on their study site in southeastern

Montana.

Conservation Activities: Indicator colonies will be

selected and surveyed on a yearly basis for longterm trends and distribution in addition to randomly

selected sites (Atkinson 2000).

Major Populations: Montana’s largest prairie dog

complex occurs in Phillips and Blaine counties and

appears to contain Montana’s largest Burrowing

Owl complex (currently ~11,336 ha (28,000 ac).

Prairie dog colony acreage in this complex appeared

to peak in the early 1990s (~21,457 ha (53,000 ac))

(Knowles In review).

State Status: Species of Special Concern

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/S3B, SZN (rare and

uncommon breeding populations in the state, no nonbreeding occurrences).

Habitat Use and Condition: Black-tailed prairie dogs

and Richardson’s ground squirrel colonies comprise

the primary and secondary habitats of Burrowing

Owls in Montana. These species are found

exclusively east of the Continental Divide and

therefore most confirmed Burrowing Owl breeding

records are also east of the Divide (Knowles In

review). Most Burrowing Owls records from west of

the Continental Divide are probably associated with

badger-enlarged holes in Columbian ground squirrel

colonies (Knowles In review).

60 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Fig. A-5. Latilong distribution of Burrowing Owls in Montana. B = direct evidence of breeding, b = indirect

evidence of breeding, t = species observed, but no evidence of breeding (Montana Bird Distribution

Committee 1996).

Appendix A 61

Most occupied prairie dog habitat in Custer and

Harris Creek watersheds (southeast Montana) was

on private land (65%), followed by federal (30%) and

state lands (5%) (Restani et al 2001). Average town

size was 11.0 ± 1.9 ha and 17.3 ± 5.3 ha on private

and public lands, respectively. Fifty-four percent of

breeding Burrowing Owls were on private land, 23%

on state, and the remaining 23% on federal lands.

On the Charles M. Russell NWR in e. Montana,

prairie dogs were limited to 283 ha (700 acres) in

1964 (the end of intensive eradication efforts; B.

Haglan, pers. commun.). In 1974 prairie dog acreage

was 1,807 ha (4,464 acres) and in 1979 acreage had

increased to 2,504 ha (6,185 acres). Prairie dog

surveys were conducted on the Refuge in 1983, 1988,

1993, and 1997, but data were not reported (Knowles

In review).

Montana’s prairie dog population has declined by

90% or more the 20th century (Flath and Clark

1986). The loss of prairie dogs due to systematic

control resulted in a corresponding decline in

Burrowing Owls up through at least 1972 when

poisoning by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s

Animal Damage Control ended on private and public

lands (Knowles In review). Approximately half of

Montana’s remaining prairie dog acreage has been

lost during the past decade primarily due to plague

(Knowles In review). Additional impacts identified

for this period included recreational shooting,

poisoning, and agricultural land conversions

(Knowles In review).

Threats: Rodent poisoning, plague, and habitat

conversion to cropland have reduced and

fragmented prairie dog town habitat in Montana

(Flath and Clark 1986). Montana’s state agricultural

agencies consider prairie dogs vertebrate pests and

require systematic suppression (Restani et al. 2001),

thereby reducing Burrowing Owl habitat.

Recreational shooting on Montana’s prairie dog

colonies has the potential to cause direct illegal

mortality of Burrowing Owl. Anecdotal data

suggests that owls are being shot but the

significance of this problem remains undocumented

(Knowles In review). Restani et al. (2001) found no

evidence of Burrowing Owl mortality related to

recreational shooting; however, they felt it may

disrupted daytime foraging activity of adults. Prairie

dog shooting may leave prairie dog carcasses on the

surface with significant concentrations of lead, which

may be ingested by Burrowing Owls (Knowles In

review).
Literature Cited:

Atkinson, E. C. 2000. Montana–wide Burrowing Owl

Surveys: Description of First Year Results, 1999.

Unpublished Report, Marmot’s Edge

Conservation, Belgrade, Montana.

Flath, D. L., and T.W. Clark. 1986. Historic status of

black-footed ferret habitat in Montana. Great

Basin Naturalist Memoirs 8:63-71.

James, P. C., and R. H. M. Espie. 1997. Current

status of the Burrowing Owl in North America: an

agency survey. Pages 3-5 in J. Lincer and K.

Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, its biology

and management including the Proceedings of the

First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.

Raptor Research Report Number 9.

Knowles, C. J. In review. A Review of Burrowing

Owl Observations Recorded in Montana 1964-

1999. FaunaWest Wildlife Consultants Rept.,

Boulder, Montana.

Marti, C. D., and J. S. Marks. 1989. Medium-sized

owls. Pages 124-133 in B. A. Giron Pendleton,

editor. Proceedings of the Western Raptor

Management Symposium and Workshop,

National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

Montana Bird Distribution Committee. 1996. P.D.

Skarr’s Montana Bird Distribution. 5th edition.

Special publication no. 3. Montana Natural

Heritage Program, Helena, MT.

Restani, M., L. R. Rau, and D. L. Flath. 2001.

Nesting ecology Of Burrowing Owls occupying

prairie dog towns In southeastern Montana.

Journal of Raptor Research 35:296-303.

Richardson, R., and D. C. Tribby. 1991. Status of the

Black-tailed Prairie Dog in the Custer Creek

Complex, Big Dry Resource Area, Miles City

District. Bureau of Land Management. U.S.

Department of Interior, Technical Report.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966-2001. Version 2002.1, U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbr-pwrc.

usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html.

Wittenhagen, K. W., Jr., and D. C. Tribby. 1996.

Status of the Black-tailed Prairie Dog in the

Custer Creek Complex, Big Dry Resource Area,

Miles City District. Bureau of Land Management.

U.S. Department of Interior, Technical Report.

62 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Nebraska

Summary: Burrowing Owls regularly nest in the

western two-thirds of Nebraska. Loss of prairie

habitat and prairie dog declines have reduced

available nesting areas, especially in the eastern part

of the state (Ducey 1988). James and Espie (1997)

estimated 100 to 1,000 pairs of Burrowing Owls in

Nebraska in 1992. The population trend was thought

to be decreasing due to habitat loss and pesticide use

(James and Espie 1997).

BBS: No significant trends were detected for any

survey period (Sauer et al. 2002).

CBC: N/A

Atlas: The Burrowing Owl was previously a common

breeder throughout Nebraska; however, breeding is

now restricted to the western two-thirds of the state

where it is most abundant in the Panhandle (Fig.

A-6). Rare observations occur in e. Nebraska,

primarily during fall migration (Sharpe et al. 2001).

Research/Monitoring In w. Nebraska, breeding

Burrowing Owl pairs declined 63% (91 to 34) from

1990-96 (Desmond et al. 2000). Owl numbers and

density of active and inactive prairie dog burrows

declined linearly between 1990-96. There was a timelag in Burrowing Owl response to changes in burrow

densities on several prairie dog colonies (Desmond

et al. 2000).

Productivity from 1989-93 was low with 1.9 ± 0.1

fledglings/nest (Desmond et al. 2000). Few withincolony variables related to fledging success and a

significant colony effect in all five years of

productivity study indicated that factors influencing

fledging success were at the colony scale. Predation

by badgers was significantly lower in high density

prairie dog colonies in three of seven years. In one of

two years examined, successful nests had an average

of 96 active prairie dog burrows within 75 m and

unsuccessful nests had only 26 active burrows. This

disparity in nesting success may be from enhanced

detection of predators by prairie dogs, a dilution

effect with abundant alternate prey, reduced

vegetation height allowing increased visibility of

predators, or presence of alternate burrows for

brood dispersal (Desmond et al. 2000).

In w. Nebraska (Banner, Box Butte, Morrill, Scotts

Bluff and Sioux counties) Desmond and Savidge

(1996) found 85 Burrowing Owl nests in 1989, 109 in

1990, and 103 in 1991. More Burrowing Owls were

found in prairie dog communities than in areas with

only badger burrows for nesting. Burrowing Owl

densities declined between 1989-91 in small prairie

dog colonies (<35 ha), but were relatively constant

in large colonies (≥ 35 ha). As an indication of

density and distribution, nearest-neighbor distance

averaged 125 ± 5 m (n = 105, range 46–229 m) for

Burrowing Owl nest clusters in large prairie dog

colonies. Mean nearest-neighbor distance in small

colonies was 105 ± 7 m (n = 118, range 11–434 m) and

240 ± 39 m (n = 20, range 58–588 m) for Burrowing

Owls nesting in badger burrows.

Desmond and Savidge (1996) found that Burrowing

Owl densities were inversely related to prairie dog

town size, active burrow density, inactive burrow

density, and total burrow density for at least one of

the three years of study. This suggested that burrow

availability was not a limiting factor for Burrowing

Owls on prairie dog colonies, but they did note that

nest sites may be limiting in pastures with only

badger burrows. Total Burrowing Owl numbers

were positively related to prairie dog town size, but

were not related to active, inactive, or total prairie

dog burrow densities (Desmond and Savidge 1996).

Thus, prairie dog town size, rather than numbers of

burrows, was important in determining owl densities

and numbers in western Nebraska.

Desmond et al. (1995) hypothesized that if

gregarious nesting by Burrowing Owls in prairie dog

towns was a response to limited habitat, owl nests

should be randomly or regularly distributed

throughout the towns with nearest neighbor

distance positively related to town size.

Alternatively, given sufficient space and burrows,

they felt that Burrowing Owls should exhibit a

nonrandom spatial nesting pattern. Desmond et al.

(1995) found random distributions for Burrowing

Owl nests at densities of ≥ 0.22 nests/ha which

related to prairie dog towns <35 ha in size.

Conversely, Burrowing Owls at densities ≤ 0.20

nests/ha had clumped distributions (with only one

exception) and were related to prairie dog towns ≥

35 ha in size. Within small towns, the nearest

neighbor distance between Burrowing Owl nests

was positively related to town size; however, this

relationship did not occur in large towns. Clumping

did not appear to be related to prey abundance or

precipitation rates since the spatial patterns of

Burrowing Owl nests were similar across the years

of study while environmental factors changed. These

findings suggest that habitat was limiting on small

prairie dog towns and the random distribution was a

function of minimum space requirements by

Burrowing Owls. Habitat did not appear to be

limiting on prairie dog towns ≥ 35 ha, as evidenced

by lower Burrowing Owl density, clumped

distributions, and unoccupied areas of apparently

suitable burrows (Desmond et al. 1995). This

research further suggested that additional limiting

factors, beyond burrow availability, are influencing

Burrowing Owl populations in Nebraska, and

perhaps elsewhere.

In w. Nebraska, Burrowing Owl chicks preferred to

use active versus inactive prairie-dog burrows for

satellite burrows (Desmond et al. 1995). The authors

cited burrow maintenance by prairie dogs as the

primary benefit; inactive burrows degraded quickly

(1-3 yrs) and were unsuitable for Burrowing Owls.

Family groups used 10 ± 1 (range 0-36) satellite

burrows within 75 m of the nest. Twenty-nine broods

preferred active satellite burrows, two broods used

active burrows less than expected (both were in

Appendix A 63
Fig. A-6. Distribution of Burrowing Owls in Nebraska, based on breeding evidence post-1960 (Ducey 1988).

64 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

areas with few active burrows due to poisoning), and

11 broods used active burrows in proportion to their

availability. Furthermore, seven of the later category

had nearly 100% of satellite burrows in active prairie

dog burrows. Nine nest burrows had no active

prairie-dog burrows within 75 m of the nest

(Desmond et al. 1995).

Desmond et al. (1995) found that prairie dog activity

in the vicinity of Burrowing Owl nests strongly

influenced nest success and attributed this to predator

avoidance through prairie dog alarm calls and the

“dilution effect” where predators were more likely to

target prairie dogs versus the owls. Successful

Burrowing Owl nests had more active prairie-dog

burrows within a 75-m radius of the nest burrow

(Mean = 96 ± 5 m; n = 60) than unsuccessful nests

(Mean = 26 ± 4 m; n = 104; Desmond et al. 1995).

Conservation Activities: None identified.

Major Populations: Desmond and Savidge (1996)

found 85 Burrowing Owl nests in 1989, 109 in 1990,

and 103 in 1991 in 21 prairie dog towns and 17

grassland pastures in Banner, Box Butte, Morrill,

Scotts Bluff, and Sioux counties (western Nebraska).

Burrowing Owl surveys were conducted in Banner,

Box Butte, Kimball, Morrill, Scotts Bluff and Sioux

counties in nw. Nebraska. Of the 92 sites surveyed

for prairie dog associates in May/June 2001, 67

contained Burrowing Owls (242 adult Burrowing

Owls). Of the 67 Burrowing Owl locations, nine were

off-colony sightings and generally only included one

or two individuals. In only three of these cases were

possible nest burrows observed (all appeared to be

old badger or fox dens). The other Burrowing Owls

may have been foraging individuals that had

ventured far from their nest sites, though three were

located in dense sagebrush habitat where ground

burrows were difficult to detect (T. VerCauteren,

pers. commun.). Sixty-one additional sites (171

individuals) were observed in Cheyenne, Garden,

Keith, and Perkins counties by Z. Roehrs, University

of Nebraska (T. VerCauteren, pers. commun.). The

majority of these sightings were based on road-side

counts and do not represent total populations.

State Status: None.

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/S3 (rare and uncommon in

the state).

Habitat Use and Condition: Virtually no information

was available on habitat condition. A small amount of

habitat related research was conducted in western

Nebraska by Desmond (1991); however, this thesis

focused primarily on spatial relationships within

prairie dog towns and badger burrow areas. The

author found Burrowing Owls near both agricultural

and range habitats. More nests were located in

agricultural areas; however, there was no significant

difference in numbers or density of Burrowing Owl

pairs between the two habitat types.

Threats: Destruction of black-tailed prairie dogs is

the primary threat to Burrowing Owls in Nebraska.

Black-tailed prairie dog control in Nebraska in 1990-

91 accounted for 50% of the reported prairie dog

control activity nationwide, and Nebraska state law

required prairie dog eradication on public and

private lands until 1995 (Roemer and Forrest 1996,

Desmond et al. 2000). Desmond and Savidge (1999)

documented reduced burrow availability and

increased predation rates in prairie dog town

subjected to prairie dog control efforts. 
Literature Cited:

Desmond, M. J. 1991. Ecological aspects of

Burrowing Owl nesting strategies in the

Nebraska panhandle. M.S. Thesis, University of

Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.

Desmond, M. J., J. A. Savidge, and T. F. Seibert.

1995. Spatial patterns of Burrowing Owl

(Speotyto cunicularia) nests in black-tailed

prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) towns in

western Nebraska. Canadian Journal of Zoology

73:1375-1379.

Desmond, M. J. and J. A. Savidge. 1996. Factors

influencing Burrowing Owl (Speotyto

cunicularia) nest densities and numbers In

western Nebraska. American Midland Naturalist

136:143-148.

Desmond, M. J., and J. A. Savidge. 1999. Satellite

burrow use by Burrowing Owl chicks and its

influence on nest fate. Pages 128-130 in P. D.

Vickery and J. R. Herkert, editors. Ecology and

conservation of grassland birds of the western

hemisphere. Studies in Avian Biology 19.

Desmond, M. J., J. A. Savidge, and K. M. Eskridge.

2000. Correlations between Burrowing Owl and

black-tailed prairie dog declines: a 7-Year

analysis. Journal of Wildlife Management

64:1067-1075.

Ducey, J. E. 1988. Nebraska Birds, Breeding Status

and Distribution. Simmons-Boardman Books,

Omaha, Nebraska.

James, P. C., and R. H. M. Espie. 1997. Current

status of the Burrowing Owl in North America: an

agency survey. Pages 3-5 in J. Lincer and K.

Steenhof, editors The Burrowing Owl, its biology

and management including the Proceedings of the

First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.

Raptor Research Report Number 9.

Roemer, D. M., and S. C. Forrest. 1996. Prairie dog

poisoning in Northern Great Plains: an analysis of

programs and policies. Environmental

Management 20:349-359.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966-2001. Version 2002.1, U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbr-pwrc.

usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html.

Sharpe, R. S., W. R. Silcock, J. G. Jorgensen. 2001.

Birds of Nebraska: Their Distribution and

Temporal Occurrence. University of Nebraska

Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Appendix A 65
Nevada

Summary: Burrowing Owls breed throughout

Nevada in salt desert scrub, Mojave shrub, and

some sagebrush habitat, as well as in agricultural

landscapes. It winters most frequently in the

southern half of Nevada, but has been recorded

throughout the state during all months (Herron et

al. 1985). Local declines are noted where habitat is

lost to development at the suburban fringe. For

example observations suggest a decline of up to 50%

in the Lahontan Valley since 1946 (Alcorn 1988). The

statewide population was roughly estimated at 1,000

to 10,000 pairs in 1992, based on a survey of state

wildlife agencies in 1992 (James and Espie 1997).

BBS: No significant trends were detected for any

survey period (Sauer et al. 2002).

CBC: N/A. This species rarely winters in n. Nevada

and sparingly in the s. part of the state.

Atlas: Confirmed or suspected breeding in nearly

every county (Fig. A-7, Nevada Breeding Bird Atlas,

unpublished data, T. Floyd, pers. commun.). No

Atlas records for Mineral, Esmeralda, Douglas,

Carson City, or Storey counties.

Research/Monitoring Burrowing Owls were

intensively monitored on the Nevada Test Site

(NTS) in sc. Nevada from 1996-2001 (Hall et al. In

review, Steen et al. 1997). Three main ecoregions are

recognized on the NTS: Great Basin Desert (Great

Basin), Mojave Desert (Mojave), and a transitional

ecoregion between the two deserts (transition). A

total of 114 Burrowing Owl locations, including 84

burrowing sites and 30 sighting locations, were

documented on the NTS for a density of 2.4

Burrowing Owls burrows/100 km2. Sixty-two

locations (54%) occurred in the transition, 37 (33%)

occurred in the Mojave, nine (8%) occurred in the

Great Basin, and six (5%) were at historic,

unspecified locations. Most of the locations occurred

in areas with disturbances containing partially

buried metal culverts and pipes, relatively deep

washes with defined banks, mounds of dirt or

excavations, or roadcuts.

A total of 19 nest burrows were documented using

camera systems from 1999-2001. Breeding was

detected during at least one of the three years at 15

sites (10 in transition, 3 in Mojave, two in Great

Basin). Breeding during two of the three years

occurred at three sites (two in transition, one in

Great Basin), and at one site (transition) breeding

occurred during all three years. Nest burrows were

predominately in metal culverts or metal or plastic

pipes. Two nest burrows were in washbanks, two in

man-made dirt mounds, two in roadcuts, and one in a

desert tortoise burrow (Hall et al. In review, Steen

et al. 1997).

A total of 26 breeding pairs and 122 young were

detected over the three-year period. Seven, eight,

and 11 breeding pairs and 24, 43, and 55 young were

detected during 1999, 2000, and 2001, respectively.

The average number of young per breeding pairs

during the entire period was 4.7 (s.d. = 2.0, n = 26).

The average number of young per breeding pair by

year was 3.4 (s.d = 1.6, n = 7), 5.6 (s.d. = 1.6, n = 8),

and 5.0 (s.d. = 2.1, n = 11) during 1999, 2000, and

2001, respectively. The average number of young per

breeding pair by ecoregion was 5.0 (s.d. = 1.8, n =

19), 4.5 (s.d. = 3.1, n = 4), and 3.0 (s.d. = 0, n = 3) in

the transition, Great Basin, and Mojave,

respectively. Twelve (42%) nesting burrows

produced young during two or more years between

1999 and 2001. There appeared to be a relationship

between the number of young per breeding pair and

the amount of precipitation received during the

previous October to March. Young were detected

between mid-May and early-September. The local

population trend appears to be stable. The increase

in number of breeding pairs is due to finding new

burrows over the three years and does not

necessarily reflect a true increase in the population

(Steen et al. 1997, Hall et al. In review).

Most of the known Burrowing Owls were monitored

at least monthly November 1997–July 1998 and

November 1998–December 2001. Burrowing Owls

were found on the NTS year-round. Generally,

Burrowing Owls wintered on the NTS in low

numbers with a large influx around mid-March. Owl

numbers fluctuated slightly during the spring and

summer, increased slightly during SeptemberOctober, and then steadily declined through late fall

and early winter until they reached their lowest

point, usually in January (Steen et al. 1997, Hall et

al. In review).

Burrowing Owls on the NTS appeared to be quite

tolerant of disturbance as measured by traffic

counters and flushing distance to observers on foot

and in a vehicle. Burrowing Owls successfully

produced young with few to many vehicles (<1 to

488 per day) passing withing 10 to 269 m of a nest

burrow. No apparent relationship was evident

between the number of vehicles per day or distance

to road and the number of young. Average flushing

distance was approximately 31 m (n = 130) to an

observer on foot and approximately 29 m (n = 79) to

a vehicle (Steen et al. 1997, Hall et al. In review).

The Las Vegas Field Station of the U.S. Geological

Survey, Biological Resources Division, in

cooperation with the National Park Service will

initiate a research study on Burrowing Owls at the

Lake Mead National Recreation Area (NRA) in s.

Nevada, scheduled to begin in 2002. The objective of

the study is to determine distribution and abundance

of Burrowing Owls inhabiting the Lake Mead NRA,

to relate population abundance to environmental

variables on a landscape scale to determine area of

high to low Burrowing Owl densities, and evaluate

reproductive success in relation to habitat and

environmental variables (R. Williams, pers.

commun.).

66 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Fig. A-7. Distribution of Burrowing Owls in Nevada from the Nevada Breeding Bird Atlas project 

(Unpubl. data).

Appendix A 67
Conservation Activities: The Nevada Partners in

Flight Bird Conservation Plan (Neel 1999) outlines

conservation measures to improve conditions for

Burrowing Owls in the State, and establishes a

population objective, to stabilize Burrowing Owl

populations by 2004, in each of the 3 habitat types

used by Burrowing Owls in Nevada: Agricultural

Landscapes, Mojave Scrub, and Salt Scrub.

The Nevada Breeding Bird Atlas proposes to predict

the range and breeding locations of Burrowing Owls

based on currently known breeding locations and on

the distributions of vegetation types within the

State. These projections may be used for

conservation planning and, with ground-truthing,

lead to further investigations of specific habitat

conditions favorable for owls.

Major Populations: A total of 114 Burrowing Owl

locations, including 19 nest burrows occurred on the

NTS in sc. Nevada.

State Status: Species protected under Nevada

Revised Statutes 501 and Nevada Administrative

Code 503.

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/S3B (rare and uncommon

breeding populations in the state).

Habitat Use and Condition: In Nevada, sparselyvegetated habitats preferred by Burrowing Owls are

predominantly found in the salt desert scrub habitat

type, which occupies roughly 8.9 million hectares of

valley bottoms within the Great Basin physiographic

region. Sagebrush habitat was also occupied when

artificial burrows were placed in moderately dense

sagebrush communities. Burrowing Owls often

breed around the fringes of agricultural lands and

use crop and pasture lands for foraging during the

breeding season. General habitat condition in many

of the known nesting territories is poor. Excessive

grazing by large ungulates does not seem to

decrease nest site suitability, and may be preferred

because of increased visibility. Burrowing Owls also

nest in open urban areas with open space (e.g., golf

courses, airport runways, and industrial areas) if

burrows are available. Concrete slabs and other

debris left at the old Stead Air Force Base north of

Reno, inhabited by California ground squirrels,

provided high density nesting habitat for over 40

years (Neel 1999).

Habitat condition of salt desert scrub varies with

grazing and fire history. Indian ricegrass was likely

much more prevalent historically in this habitat than

it is today, and is an important plant for kangaroo

rats, a key component in the ecology of this habitat

and a prey item for Burrowing Owls. Indiscriminate

livestock grazing over the 100-year period following

European settlement has tipped the balance toward

more durable shrubs, unpalatable forbs, and exotic

annual grasses on vast tracts of salt desert scrub.

Invasion of exotic plants such as cheatgrass,

halogeton, Russian thistle, and in certain places,

tamarisk has compromised native communities

(Neel 1999). The effect of this type of habitat

conversion on Burrowing Owls has not been

measured.

Threats: In general, habitat loss is occurring due to

agricultural cultivation and development.

Development has placed nesting Burrowing Owls

under increasing pressure near Reno, Carson City,

and Minden-Gardnerville in particular (Neel 1999).

Loss of native components and invasion of exotics in

Nevada’s shrub habitats may have negative

implications for Burrowing Owls (see Habitat Use

and Condition).

Literature Cited:

Alcorn, J. R. 1988. The Birds of Nevada. Fairview

West Publishing, Fallon, Nevada.

Hall, D. B., P. D. Greger, and A. V. Housewright. In

review. Burrowing owl ecology on the Nevada

Test Site. DOE/NV/11718–701. U.S. Department

of Energy, National Nuclear Security

Administration, Nevada Operations Office, Las

Vegas, Nevada.

Herron, G. B., C. A. Mortimore, and M. S. Rawlings.

1985. Nevada Raptors: Their biology and

management. Nevada Department of Wildlife.

James, P. C., and R. H. M. Espie. 1997. Current

status of the Burrowing Owl in North America:

An agency survey. Pages 3-5 in J. Lincer and K.

Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, its biology

and management including the Proceedings of the

First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.

Raptor Reserarch Report Number 9.

Neel, L. 1999. Nevada Partners in Flight Bird

Conservation Plan. Nevada Partners in Flight.

http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/pl-nv-10.pdf

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966–2001. Version 2002.1, U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbr-pwrc.

usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html.

Steen, D. C., D. B. Hall, P. D. Greger, and C. A. Wills.

1997. Distribution of the chuckwalla, western

burrowing owl, and six bat species on the Nevada

Test Site. DOE/NV/11718–149. U.S. Department

of Energy, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas,

Nevada.

68 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
New Mexico

Summary: Burrowing Owls are found in Great Basin

shrub-steppe with open to dense stands of shrubs

and low trees, including big sagebrush, saltbush,

greasewood, or creosote bush. They are also found in

Chihuahuan Desert scrub with open stands of

creosote bush and large succulents, Mojave Desert

scrub, annual grassland, and farms (New Mexico

Dept. Game and Fish 2000). Numerous anecdotal

accounts of distribution and relative abundance 

exist for New Mexico, but no quantitative data are

available other than on small study sites. Based 

on a survey of biologists, James and Espie (1997)

estimated 1,000 to 10,000 pairs in New Mexico in 1992

with a stable population trend.

BBS: A significant decline (Trend = –3.8, P <0.03, 

n = 6) was detected for the 1966-1979 subinterval.

No other significant trends were detected. Moderate

data deficiencies were noted (sample sizes <14, subinterval trends significantly different from each

other) (Sauer et al. 2002).

CBC: Detected on only three CBCs with regularity,

with the largest numbers recorded at Las Cruces,

the primary wintering area in the state. No

detectable trend (Sauer et al. 1996), although local

declines have been noted on the Roswell CBC, due

probably to the elimination of a sizeable prairie dog

town in that area.

Atlas: Commenced in 2000. Data not yet available.

Research/Monitoring: Botelho and Arrowood (1996)

found Burrowing Owl pairs nesting in humanaltered areas had significantly more nestlings and

fledged significantly more young than pairs nesting

in natural areas. They speculated that lower

reproductive rates of natural-area pairs was due to

increased inter-owl disturbance and/or to increased

predation (Botelho and Arrowood 1996).

In 1996-97, Johnson et al. (1997) also found a

predominance of nests in areas of heavy human

activity on Holloman Air Force Base. Owls were

attracted to these areas for a variety of reasons,

including soil disturbance and insect-attracting

lighting. They found 18 nest burrows in 1996 and 19

in 1997, for a total of 37 nests; 21 in areas of high

disturbance and 11 in areas of low disturbance (five

nests were not included in the analyses due to

reoccupancy). The mean number of young fledged

from all successful nests was 2.1 (range 1-4) in 1996

and 2.7 (range 1-5) in 1997. Nest success was 64% (n

= 11) for 1996 and 77% (n = 13) for 1997. Nests in

high disturbance areas were closer to high perches,

closer to roads, further from shrubs, and had lower

shrub cover than nests in low disturbance areas.

Despite a preference to breed in these areas, and

contrary to the findings of Botelho and Arrowood

(1996), high rates of abandonment were noted in

disturbed areas. Sixty-four percent of nests

disturbed by human activity or natural events were

abandoned. Of 11 nests disturbed by human activity

alone, 55% (6) were abandoned (Johnson et al. 1997).

Forty-five artificial burrows were installed on

Holloman Air Force Base in 2000-2001 to replace

natural burrows that had collapsed (C. Finley, pers.

commun.).

Martin (1973) studied 15 breeding pairs of

Burrowing Owls three miles south of Albuquerque,

NM, in the Tijeras Arroyo and a railway cut in

desert grassland. Burrowing Owls exclusively used

rock squirrel burrows since no prairie dogs were

present in the study area. Mean reproductive

success was 4.9 young per pair. The lowest possible

mean clutch size was 5.2 eggs based on 78 young

seen.

Martin (1973) banded nine breeding males and nine

females in 1970. Six males and two females returned

in 1971. All returning males selected the same

burrow they had inhabited in 1970, unless the

burrow had been destroyed. Of banded birds, no pair

combinations were retained in 1971, suggesting low

intra-pair fidelity. It was unknown whether low

female return rates were due to higher mortality or

to lower site fidelity. Martin (1973) determined that

few Burrowing Owls remained resident on the study

area during winter. Fall departure was from August

through September and earliest spring arrival was

mid-March. Pair formation in some Burrowing Owls

apparently occurred before arrival.

Hawks Aloft, Inc. has been monitoring breeding

success in nests on Kirtland Air Force Base in

Albuquerque since the late 1990’s. Numbers declined

significantly in 2000 and 2001 for unknown reasons

(C. Finley, pers. commun.). Monitoring is continuing.

On Holloman Air Force Base, six of 18 (33%) nesting

burrows were occupied by Burrowing Owls during

the winter, in addition to two newly occupied winter

burrows (Johnson et al. 1997). Similarly, most males

and a few female Burrowing Owls overwinter at

burrows they used for breeding on the campus of

New Mexico State University in Las Cruces

(Arrowood et al. 2000), while all fledglings leave the

area. Few banded owls ever return to the study area.

However, some owls return after several years of

absence.

Arrowood et al. (2000) found that resident male

Burrowing Owls produced more nestlings (mean =

3.5 ± 2.6) than migrant males (mean = 2.5 ± 1.9).

Area-experienced females produced more nestlings

than area-inexperienced females (mean = 2.2 ± 2.3).

More nestlings were produced by resident males

paired with area-experienced females than were

produced by other pair types. Most females were

migratory, although it is unknown what factors

influence females to overwinter or to migrate.

Appendix A 69
Arrowood et al. (2001) reported that in some areas of

New Mexico, Burrowing Owl populations were

stable or increasing, although decreasing

populations were reported in other areas. Stable and

increasing populations were associated with the

presence of suitable habitat and increased

precipitation and food availability. Decreasing

populations were associated with loss of suitable

habitat, due to declining prairie dog populations and

urban sprawl.

Conservation Activities: The New Mexico Burrowing

Owl Working Group (NMBOWG) was formed in

response to population declines at some sites in New

Mexico (Hawks Aloft, Inc. 2002). The NWBOWG is a

collaborative effort of non-profit organizations,

government agencies, private enterprises and

individuals. The goals of the working group are to 

(1) facilitate communication, (2) establish a statewide

monitoring effort, (3) maintain a web page to

educate the public, promote the NMBOWG, and

provide on-line data forms, (4) promote the

NMBOWG through public outreach, (5) develop a

review committee to determine sighting accuracy, 

(6) enter sightings into a database and share the

database with contributing organizations, (7) create

a map showing general locations in New Mexico, 

(8) over time, determine the population trends of

Burrowing Owls in New Mexico, and (9) develop

conservation recommendations based on monitoring

results. The NMBOWG currently supports on-going

research projects at four sites: Holloman and

Kirtland Air Force Bases, New Mexico State

University, and the Turner Ranch. The NMBOWG

has initiated a volunteer monitoring system to

collect data on Burrowing Owl populations in the

state (C. Finley, pers. commun., Hawks Aloft, Inc.

2002).

Major Populations: Burrowing Owls have been

documented as permanent residents at the White

Sands National Monument in Dona Ana and Otero

counties (White Sands National Monument 1993),

Grulla National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 1994),

Holloman Air Force Base (Mesilla Valley Audubon

Society 1996), Gray Ranch in Hidalgo County (Black

1997), and the Las Cruces/New Mexico State

University area (W. Howe, pers. commun.).

Burrowing Owls are uncommon spring and fall

migrants and common breeders at the El Malpais

National Monument and National Conservation

Area (Hvenegaard 1989), Sevilleta National Wildlife

Refuge (USFWS 1992), and Fort Bliss (Fort Bliss

Directorate of Environment 1995) (New Mexico

Dept. Game and Fish 2000). A minimum of 475

Burrowing Owls were detected in sc. Quay county,

Curry county, and n. Roosevelt County in 2002,

where 63% of surveyed prairie dog colonies were

occupied by Burrowing Owls (L. Sager and C.

Rustay, pers. commun.). Kirtland AFB in

Albuquerque has one of the largest populations of

Burrowing Owls in New Mexico with 40-50 pairs

present in some years.

State Status: No special designation.

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/S4B, S4N (widespread,

abundant, and secure in the state, but of long-term

concern during breeding and non-breeding seasons).

Habitat Use and Condition: The grasslands of

southern New Mexico have been invaded by

mesquite and creosote bush (Gardner 1951, York and

Dick-Peddie 1960), reducing habitat suitability in

much of this region.

Best (1969) studied Burrowing Owls in Dona Ana

and Luna counties of south-central New Mexico

from 1964-67, including nine colonies ranging from 9-

19 birds. Burrowing Owls used a broad range of

macro and micro-habitats. Single breeding pairs

were found in small isolated areas of open habitat,

and colonies were restricted to yucca grassland with

burrows of banner-tailed kangaroo rats. The largest

colonies found during the study were in areas

occupied by cattle.

Fire affects Burrowing Owls by altering vegetation

and prey base. Frequent fire can maintain or

improve Burrowing Owl habitats by reducing plant

height and cover around burrows and by controlling

woody plant invasion. Periodic fire in grasslands

probably increases prey diversity for Burrowing

Owls, and may increase overall prey density (New

Mexico Dept. Game and Fish 2000).

Threats: Prairie dog eradication, increased

urbanization and human disturbance during the

breeding season represent primary threats to

Burrowing Owls in New Mexico (Arrowood et al.

2001).

Literature Cited:

Arrowood, P. C., C. A. Finley, C. Blood, B.

Thompson, and E. S. Botelho. 2000. Residency,

return, and reproduction by Burrowing Owls

(Athene cunicularia) in southern New Mexico,

U.S.A. Poster presentation; Owls 2000—The

Biology, Conservation, and Cultural Significance

of Owls. Australian National University,

Canberra, Australia.

Arrowood, P. C., C. A. Finley, and B. C. Thompson.

2001. Analyses of Burrowing Owl populations in

New Mexico. Journal of Raptor Research 35:362-

370.

Best, T. R. 1969. Habitat, annual cycle, and food of

Burrowing Owls in southcentral New Mexico.

M.S. Thesis, New Mexico State University, Las

Cruces, New Mexico.

Black, C. 1997. Animas Foundation Gray Ranch Bird

List. Animas Foundation, Animas, New Mexico.

70 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Botelho, E. S., and P. C. Arrowood. 1996. Nesting

success of western Burrowing Owls in natural and

human-altered environments in Bird, D., D.

Varland, and J. Negro, editors. Raptors in Human

Landscapes. Academic Press, Ltd., London.

Botelho, E. S., and P. C. Arrowood. 1998. The effect

of burrow site use on the reproductive success of

a partially migratory population of western

Burrowing Owls (Speotyto cunicularia

hypugaea). Journal of Raptor Research 32:233-

240.

Conservation Division, Fort Bliss Directorate of

Environment. 1995. Checklist of Birds, Fort Bliss,

Texas [and New Mexico].

Hawks Aloft, Inc. 2002. New Mexico Burrowing Owl

Working Group web page.

http://www.hawksaloft.org/burrowingowl.html.

Hvenegaard, G. T. 1989. A checklist of the birds of El

Malpais National Monument a Conservation

Area. Southwest Parks and Monuments

Association.

James, P. C., and R. H. M. Espie. 1997. Current

status of the Burrowing Owl in North America: an

agency survey. Pages 3-5 in J. Lincer and K.

Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, its biology

and management including the Proceedings of the

First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.

Raptor Research Report Number 9.

Johnson, K., L. DeLay, P. Mehlhop, and K. Score.

1997. Distribution, Habitat, and Reproductive

Success of Burrowing Owls on Holloman Air

Force Base. Unpublished Report, New Mexico

Natural Heritage Program.

Martin, D. J. 1973. Selected aspects of burrowing owl

ecology and behavior. Condor 75:446-456.

Mesilla Valley Audubon Society. May 1996. Checklist

of Birds Holloman Airforce Base.

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 2000.

Species List / Species Accounts: Burrowing Owl.

Biota Information System of New Mexico

(BISON-M), New Mexico Department Of Game

And Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

http://151.199.74.229/states/nmex_main/

species/041320.htm (Version 1/2000).

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966-2001. Version 2002.1, U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Birds of

Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/

resource/othrdata/chekbird/r2/sevillet.htm

(Version 22 May 99).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Grulla National

Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/

chekbird/r2/grulla.htm (Version 22 May 98).

White Sands National Monument. 1993. Checklist of

Birds.

Appendix A 71
North Dakota

Summary: Burrowing Owl nesting was documented

throughout North Dakota from the 1800s until the

1950s. From approximately 1950 to 1970, the range

contracted and the species was no longer found in

the eastern one-third to one-fifth of the state. From

1970 to 1999, the range further contracted and

Burrowing Owls are currently rare north and east of

the Missouri River. Literature reviews indicate no

breeding records for e. North Dakota since the

1980s. James and Espie (1997) estimated 100 to 1,000

Burrowing Owl pairs in North Dakota with a stable

population trend.

Extensive Burrowing Owl surveys from 1994-99

found very low occupancy rates at historically

abundant sites (Murphy et al. 2001). Data sources

are very current and reliable for trend information

east and north of the Missouri River. West of the

Missouri River the population trend is less clear, but

is tied to the status of the black-tailed prairie dog,

which has decreased significantly in recent decades.

BBS: A significant decline in Burrowing Owl relative

abundance was noted for 1980-99 (Trend = –15.8, P

<0.00, n = 9). No additional significant trends were

detected. Data credibility is low due to small sample

sizes and high variance (Sauer et al. 2002).

CBC: N/A.

Atlas: No breeding bird atlas is published for North

Dakota. Stewart (1975) stated that Burrowing Owls

were fairly common on the Northwestern Drift

Plain; uncommon on the Missouri Coteau,

Southwestern Slope, and Southern Drift Plain; and

rare in the Agassiz Lake Plain and the Northeastern

Drift Plain (Fig. A-8).

Research/Monitoring: Igl et al. (1999) compared

Burrowing Owl abundance on 128 randomly selected

plots (quarter-sections) from 1967 (Stewart and

Kantrud 1972) and 1992-93 (Igl and Johnson 1997).

Burrowing Owl frequency of occurrence on survey

plots (% of plots with owls) did not change over the

survey period; frequency was 1.6% in 1976 compared

to 2.3% and 1.6% in 1992 and 1993, respectively. The

statewide population estimate was 7,000 breeding

pairs in 1967 compared to 7,000 and 5,000 pairs in

1992 and 1993, respectively.

Murphy et al. (2001) conducted three different

Burrowing Owl surveys throughout much of w. and c.

North Dakota between 1994-99. They (1) randomly

sampled 20% of two intensive study areas in Divide

and Kidder counties, (2) searched for Burrowing

Owls within 500 m of 35 historic (1976-87) nesting

areas in northwestern North Dakota, and

(3) surveyed for Burrowing Owls in prairie dog towns

on the Little Missouri National Grassland (LMNG;

Billings, Slope, Golden Valley, and McKenzie counties

of southwestern North Dakota). They found very few

Burrowing Owls in random surveys of Divide

County; the maximum density was 3.2 pairs/100 km2

in 1998. The maximum density based on suitable

habitat was 7.2 pairs/100 km2

. Also, no Burrowing

Owls were detected during surveys of historic

breeding areas throughout nw. North Dakota. They

felt the decline in Burrowing Owl abundance in

Divide County may be from loss of burrowing animals

and grassland habitat. Due to the presence of what

appeared to be unoccupied suitable habitat, Murphy

et al. (2001) felt that additional factors may also be

influencing Burrowing Owl populations in nw. North

Dakota. Murphy et al. (2001) failed to locate

Burrowing Owls during intensive random surveys of

Kidder County in 1998, where the species was fairly

common until the 1970s. Area resource staff noted

declines in number of breeding Burrowing Owls since

the mid-1980s. Burrowing Owls also have

disappeared from Ward County in nc. North Dakota.

In 1991, De Smet et al. (1992) found Burrowing Owls

at 45% of prairie dog towns surveyed on the LMNG,

but felt the occupancy rate was underestimated due

to poor survey conditions. Murphy et al. (2001) found

Burrowing Owls at 39% of the same towns which

were still active in 1996. Additionally, Burrowing

Owls were detected on <50% of prairie dog towns

during other spring and summer surveys (1998)

reported in Murphy et al. (2001), despite anticipated

higher detection rates for summer surveys

Murphy et al. (2001) also selected 10 prairie dog

towns which had been documented as occupied by

Burrowing Owls in 1991 (De Smet et al. 1992) for

reoccupancy surveys in 1995-98. They found 5-7 of

these were used by Burrowing Owls annually, and all

but one town were occupied for more than one year.

Higher occupancy rates of recently used prairie dog

towns (<5 yr) indicate short-term site fidelity for the

species. Non-use of available habitat within years

may suggest the Burrowing Owl is below carrying

capacity in North Dakota.

Conservation Activities: A program under the North

American Waterfowl Management Plan and Ducks

Unlimited exists to permanently protect native

prairie through perpetual easements. This has some

positive ramifications for Burrowing Owl habitat

conservation but overlooks some important,

historical owl habitats (R. Murphy, pers. commun.).

The U.S. Forest Service expects to implement a

proposed Land and Resource Management Plan in

the near future. The preferred alternative currently

includes objectives to double prairie dog town

acreage and protective measures for Burrowing Owl

nest sites (D. Freed, pers. commun.).

North Dakota Game and Fish Department has

solicited funding for compiling Burrowing Owl

nesting records and provided financial assistance for

the research conducted in Murphy et al. (2001) and

to the Canadian Wildlife Service for a Burrowing

Owl migration telemetry project (R. Murphy, pers.

commun.).

72 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Fig. A-8. Distribution of Burrowing Owls in North Dakota, prior to 1972. Filled squares = nest or dependent

young recorded from 1950 to 1972. Empty squares = nests or dependent young recorded prior to 1950. Filled

triangles = territorial males or pairs recorded from 1950 to 1972. Empty triangles = territorial males or

pairs recorded prior to 1950 (Stewart 1975). 

Appendix A 73

Major Populations: Population estimate on the

LMNG was 82 breeding pairs in 1999 (D. Freed,

unpubl. data). Major populations also occur on tribal

lands in Sioux County (Murphy et al. 2001).

State Status: No official state list for North Dakota.

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/SU (unrankable, possibly

in peril in the state, but status not certain).

Habitat Use and Condition: Overall, about 75% of

North Dakota mixed-grass prairie has been lost,

primarily to agricultural cropland, with decreases

being particularly great in the Drift Plain, the

largest physiographic subregion in North Dakota

(Samson and Knopf 1994, Murphy et al. 2001).

Conversion of native prairie continues along with

invasion of introduced and woody vegetation

(Samson and Knopf 1994, Murphy et al. 2001).

Burrowing Owls no longer occur on National

Wildlife Refuges in North Dakota (Murphy et al.

2001) due to refuge management practices favoring

tall, dense vegetation (Murphy 1993).

Burrowing Owls are closely associated with tracts 

of mixed-grass prairie that are heavily grazed by

both livestock and prairie dogs. Burrowing Owls

concentrate in grasslands with colonies of burrowing

mammals, particularly colonies of black-tailed

prairie dogs west of the Missouri River and colonies

of Richardson’s ground squirrels elsewhere (Stewart

1975). Murphy et al. (2001) felt the decline in

Burrowing Owl abundance in w. North Dakota may

be from loss of burrowing animals and grassland

habitat. Native prairie around historic Burrowing

Owl nest sites declined 33% in Divide County since

the 1960s, from 15.5 ± 2.5 (SE) ha within 500 m of

nests in 1969 to 9.5 ± 2.2 ha in 1998. Loss of breeding

Burrowing Owls in c. North Dakota may be linked to

declines in Richardson’s ground squirrels, the

primary burrow provider in this region. Murphy et

al. (2001) seldom observed Richardson’s ground

squirrels, burrows, or heavily grazed native prairie

in and near Kidder County. They felt ground

squirrel abundance was negatively influenced by

increased vegetation height in recent years 

(1993-99).
In sw. North Dakota, the black-tailed prairie dog is

largely restricted to the LMNG and tribal lands in

Sioux County. The remaining area is dominated by

agriculture with few active towns. Acreage of prairie

dog towns decreased 93% from 1939-72 in and near

the LMNG (from 5,512 ha to 403 ha; Bishop and

Culbertson 1976); and currently occupies only 0.2%

of LMNG (Murphy et al. 2001). Acreage of prairie

dog towns on the LMNG is believed to be stable to

increasing slightly, while the status of prairie dog

habitat outside the LMNG is unknown (D. Freed,

pers. commun.). Prairie dogs are, however,

considered a noxious pest in North Dakota and

private landowners are required to eradicate them

(North Dakota Century Code 63-01.1-02, subsec. 12;

Murphy et al. 2001).

Threats: Loss of habitat is the primary threat to

Burrowing Owls in North Dakota. Recent declines in

Richardson’s ground squirrels in c. and e. North

Dakota may be influencing Burrowing Owls

populations. Murphy et al. (2001) noted decreases in

ground squirrel abundance coinciding with increased

vegetation height in Kidder County (c. North

Dakota). Livestock ranching, especially sheep

grazing, has decreased in some east river counties in

recent years. Burrowing Owl habitat quality is

probably declining in part due to these changes.

Large-scale plague events in prairie dog populations

may result in long-term habitat loss for Burrowing

Owls (D. Freed, unpubl. data).

Predation on Burrowing Owls has been exacerbated

by increases in numbers of Red-tailed Hawks and

Great Horned Owls due to increases in trees because

of succession, shelter-belt planting, and fire

suppression (Clayton and Schmutz 1999, Murphy

1993). Mammalian predation pressure likely has

increased due to fragmentation of habitat and major

change in composition and distribution of predator

communities (Sargeant et al. 1993, Murphy et al.

2001).

Literature Cited:

Bishop, N. G and J. L. Culbertson. 1976. Decline of

prairie dog towns in southwestern North Dakota.

Journal of Range Management 29:217-220.

Clayton, K. M. and J. K. Schmutz. 1999. Is the

decline of Burrowing Owls (Speotyto cunicularia)

in prairie Canada linked to changes in Great

Plains ecosystems? Bird Conservation

International 9:163-185.

De Smet, K. D., G. Mcmaster, and K. Mazur. 1992.

Cooperative surveys and reintroductions of

Burrowing Owls between Manitoba and North

Dakota, 1991. Manitoba Natural Resource Report.

Igl, L. D., D. H. Johnson. 1997. Changes in breeding

bird populations in North Dakota: 1997 to 1992-

93. Auk 114:74-92.

Igl, L. D., D. H. Johnson, and H. A. Kantrud. 1999.

Uncommon breeding birds in North Dakota:

population estimates and frequencies of

occurrence. Canadian Field Naturalist

113:646-651.

James, P. C., and R. H. M. Espie. 1997. Current

status of the Burrowing Owl in North America: an

agency survey. Pages 3-5 in J. Lincer and K.

Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, its biology

and management including the Proceedings of the

First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.

Raptor Research Report Number 9.

Murphy, R. K. 1993. History, nesting biology, and

predation ecology of raptors in the Missouri

Coteau of northwestern North Dakota. Ph.D.

Dissertation, Montana State Univ., Bozeman,

Montana.

Murphy, R. K., K. W. Hasselblad, C. D. Grondahl, J.

G. Sidle, R. E. Martin, and D. W. Freed. 2001.

Status of the Burrowing Owl in Minnesota.

Journal of Raptor Research 35:322-330.

Samson, F., And F. Knopf. 1994. Prairie conservation

in North America. Bioscience 44:418-421.

Sargeant, A. B., R. J. Greenwood, M. A. Sovada, and

T. L. Shaffer. 1993. Distribution and abundance of

predators that affect duck production—Prairie

Pothole Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Resource Publication 194.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966-2001. Version 2002.1, U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html.

Stewart, R. E. 1975. Breeding Birds of North

Dakota. Tri-College Center For Environmental

Studies, Fargo, North Dakota.

Stewart, R. E., and H. A. Kantrud. 1972. Population

estimates of breeding birds in North Dakota. Auk

89:766-788.

74 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Oklahoma

Summary: Burrowing Owls in Oklahoma occur

primarily in association with prairie dog towns in

short- and mixed-grass prairies and mesquite

savannahs in the w. third of the state and are

primarily restricted to the panhandle (Sheffield and

Howery 2001). During the breeding season some owls

are found away from prairie dog towns in shortgrass

prairie. Burrowing Owls occasionally winter in w. and

c. Oklahoma in the vicinity of prairie dog towns,

airports, and areas with short grass (Sheffield and

Howery 2001). Based on a survey of biologists, James

and Espie (1997) estimated 100 to 1,000 pairs in

Oklahoma with a stable population trend. Sheffield

and Howery (2001) estimated a breeding population

of 800-1000 individuals in the state.

BBS: A significant negative trend was noted for 1966-

2001 (Trend = –11.5, P <0.00, n = 10). No other

significant trends were detected. Data credibility is

low due to small sample sizes and high variance

(Sauer et al. 2002).

CBC: N/A; <1% of the summer population remains

resident during the winter in Oklahoma.

Atlas: Unknown

Research/Monitoring: In Beaver and Texas counties

on the Oklahoma panhandle, Butts and Lewis (1982)

found 66% (n = 359) of adult owls were associated

with prairie dog colonies even though this habitat

comprised only 0.16% of the study area. This was

equivalent to a density of 0.52 Burrowing Owls/ha or 1

pair/1.9 ha. The estimated population outside 1.6 km

from prairie dog colonies was 92 pairs (34%; 0.0002

Burrowing Owls/ha or 1 pair/4,604 ha). The average

brood size was 4.7 (range 2-9, n = 54) and nest success

was 79%. Survival of young owls from the fledgling

stage through July was 89% (n = 38) (Butts 1971).

Most of this population migrated from Oklahoma in

October; about 0.05% of the total population

remained resident (Butts and Lewis 1982). In a

survey of prairie dog colonies and their associated

vertebrates in Oklahoma, Shackford and Tyler (1991)

recorded at least one Burrowing Owl on at least one

prairie dog colony in every county with ≥ 7 prairie

dog colonies (n = 11), but no Burrowing Owls in any

county with ≤ 2 prairie dog colonies (n = 10).

Currently there are no on-going research projects in

Oklahoma which specifically target Burrowing Owls.

A project is underway to monitor prairie dog town

numbers, acreage, and distribution and could

potentially also address Burrowing Owls (M.

Howery, pers. commun.).

Conservation Activities: The USFWS attempted

reintroduction of Burrowing Owls to a prairie dog

town on the Wichita Mountains National Wildlife

Refuge. The reintroduction effort failed to establish a

breeding population. An Oklahoma state management

plan is currently being developed for the black-tailed

prairie dog. The plan could have indirect benefits for

the Burrowing Owl (M. Howery, pers. commun.).

Major Populations: Based on BBS data, other

breeding records, and personal observations,

Sheffield and Howery (2001) estimated the total

breeding population in Oklahoma as 800-1,000

individuals. The majority of the breeding individuals

are limited to the panhandle counties of Cimmaron,

Texas, and Beaver. The wintering range of the

Burrowing Owl in Oklahoma is limited primarily to

the western half of the state, with periodic extralimital records further east (Sheffield and Howery

2001).

State Status: Species of Special Concern, Category

II (native species identified by technical experts as

possibly threatened or vulnerable to extirpation but

for which little, if any, evidence exists to document

the population level, range, or other factors

pertinent to its status).

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/S2 (imperiled in the state

because of extreme rarity or because of some

factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to

extirpation from the state).

Habitat Use and Condition: Beaver and e. Texas

counties in the panhandle of Oklahoma had 50-60%

of the area cultivated with the remainder used

primarily for cattle grazing. Most prairie dog towns

were located in linear strips of remaining habitat

along drainages (Butts 1971). Butts and Lewis (1982)

found 66% (n = 359) of adult owls were associated

with these prairie dog colonies even though this

habitat comprised only 0.16% of the study area.

Within colonies, Burrowing Owl nests were

distributed randomly, concentrated along the edges

of colonies, and clumped. Nests outside dog towns

were in badger dens but never in the more numerous

burrows of thirteen-lined ground squirrels, spotted

ground squirrels, or Ord’s kangaroo rats. Of

approximately 300 nests, all but six were in heavily

grazed, short grass; the exceptions were five nests

on field edges with vegetation clipped short by

prairie dogs and one nest in a mowed pasture.

Burrowing Owls did not exhibit any preference for

soil type. Eradication of prairie dogs resulted in

rapid declines in numbers of burrows available (<3

yr), and consequently Burrowing Owls rarely used

inactive towns. Burrowing Owls did not nest in areas

where prairie dogs were eradicated. Areas with light

cattle grazing were used occasionally for feeding and

escape. The use of satellite burrows by the male and

broods indicated a requirement met only in prairie

dog towns (Butts and Lewis 1982). They believed

non-prairie dog habitat in Oklahoma was marginal

breeding habitat for Burrowing Owls. Prairie dog

populations should be maintained if conservation of

Burrowing Owls is desired (Butts and Lewis 1982).

Oklahoma historically had millions of hectares of

prairie dog towns, but by 1968 this had declined to

3,856 ha (Tyler 1968). Butts (1973) documented a

decrease of 7% in acreage and 12% in numbers of

active prairie dog towns in his study area (Oklahoma

panhandle) from 1967 through 1970. Formation of

four new dog towns and a 9.5 % increase in acreage

Appendix A 75
Fig. A-9. Distribution of Burrowing Owls in Oklahoma (Oklahoma Breeding Bird Atlas Project, D. Reinking,

pers. commun.). 

76 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

of existing towns tempered the net loss. Prairie dog

eradication generally eliminated or reduced to a few

individuals distinct colonies or colony segments

(Butts 1973). Conversion of grassland to cropland

(especially irrigated cropland) also caused a

decrease in the availability and persistence of

suitable nest burrows that could have adversely

affected owl populations (Butts 1973). Tyler (1968)

surveyed prairie dog colonies and associated

vertebrates, and approximately 20 years later

Shackford and Tyler (1991) repeated the survey.

Comparison of the two studies showed a drastic

decrease in both prairie dog colonies and Burrowing

Owl numbers in the majority of the state (excluding

the panhandle).

Threats: Conversion of grassland to cropland

(especially irrigated cropland) has caused a decrease

in the availability and persistence of suitable nest

burrows that could adversely affect owl populations

(Butts 1973). Continued habitat loss and loss of

prairie dog to plague and direct eradication are also

detrimental to Burrowing Owls.

Literature Cited:

Butts. K. O. 1971. Observations on the ecology of

Burrowing Owls in western Oklahoma. A

preliminary report. Proceedings of the Oklahoma

Academy of Science 51:66-74.

Butts, K. O. 1973. Life history and habitat

requirements of Burrowing Owls in western

Oklahoma. M.S. Thesis, Oklahoma State

University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.

Butts, K. O., and J. C. Lewis. 1982. The importance

of prairie dog towns to Burrowing Owls in

Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma

Academy of Science 62:46-52.

James, P. C., and R. H. M. Espie. 1997. Current

status of the Burrowing Owl in North America: an

agency survey. Pages 3-5 in J. Lincer and K.

Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, its biology

and management including the Proceedings of the

First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.

Raptor Research Report Number 9.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966-2001. Version 2002.1, U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html.

Shackford, J. S., and J. D. Tyler. 1991. Vertebrates

associated with black-tailed prairie dog colonies in

Oklahoma. Final Report, Oklahoma Department

of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City,

Oklahoma.

Sheffield, S. R., and M. Howery. 2001. Current

status, distribution, and conservation of the

Burrowing Owl in Oklahoma. Journal of Raptor

Research 35:351-356.

Tyler, J. D. 1968. Distribution and vertebrate

associates of the black-tailed prairie dog in

Oklahoma. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of

Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
Oregon

Summary: East of the Cascades, the Burrowing Owl

breeds in all or nearly all counties. As it was

historically, it is now most common in Wasco,

Morrow, Umatilla, Malheur, Harney, and Lake

counties (Gabrielson and Jewett 1940, Adamus et al.

2001). West of the Cascades it bred in the Rogue

River Valley (Jackson County) until the late-1970’s

or early 1980’s (C. Cwiklinski, pers. commun). It is a

rare winter visitor in the Rogue and Willamette

valleys, along the coast, and occasionally in e.

Oregon (Marshall et al. 1996). The population was

estimated to be between 1,000 and 10,000 pairs in

1992 (James and Espie 1997). Burrowing Owl

populations are generally thought to be stable in se.

Oregon, possibly increasing with conversion of

shrub-steppe to annual grasses in Malheur County,

but significant trend data is lacking. Habitat loss has

been greatest in the Columbia Basin (ne. Oregon)

due to cultivation (Marshall et al. 1996).

BBS: No significant trends were detected over any

survey period. Data credibility is low due to small

sample size and high variance (Sauer et al. 2002).

CBC: Limited data available; rare winter records are

from west of the Cascades, mostly interior valleys;

some records from the coast.

Atlas: The Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas (Adamus et

al. 2001) shows Burrowing Owls breeding

throughout three se. counties: Malheur, Harney,

and Lake (Fig. A-10). Additionally Burrowing Owls

were reported in se. Deschutes and s. Crook

counties, between the Wallowa and Blue Mountains

in Baker and Union counties and east of the

Columbia River Gorge in Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam,

Morrow, and Umatilla counties. Breeding has been

confirmed in s. Klamath County west of the

Cascades, and Linn County. At this site, a pair was

seen entering a burrow over the course of several

weeks, but neither eggs nor chicks were observed

and the birds did not return in subsequent years

(P. Adamus, pers. commun.). Another summer

sighting of a single individual on a culvert in this

county suggests that Burrowing Owls might be reestablished west of the Cascades if proper habitat

conditions existed.

Research/Monitoring: In nc. Oregon (Gilliam,

Morrow, and Umatilla counties) Burrowing Owl nest

success was 57% for 63 nests in 1980 and 50% for 76

nests in 1981. Desertion was the major cause (32%;

45/139 nesting attempts) of nest failures and was

related to the proximity of other nesting pairs (see

below). Predation was the next most frequent cause

of nest failure (14%; 20/139 attempts), and 90%

(18/20) of depredation events were caused by

badgers (Green and Anthony 1989).

Green and Anthony (1989) found a significant

difference in nearest-neighbor distances for

successful and deserted Burrowing Owl nests. In all

cases where inter-nest distance was <110 m, at least

one of the two nests was deserted in mid-nesting

cycle (both nests abandoned when <60 m apart, n =

3). Only three of 21 (14%) pairs with inter-nest

distances >110 m abandoned one or both nests.

Many desertions occurred after hatching (Green and

Anthony 1989). Apparently, clumped distributions of

badger burrows and limited burrow availability in

preferred habitat forced pairs close together; interpair competition for food presumably intensified as

chick demand grew, available prey switched from

small rodents to insects, and foraging bouts were

conducted increasingly close to the nest (Green and

Anthony 1989).

Green and Anthony (1989) also documented that 72%

(23/32) of successful nests were lined with cow dung,

while only 13% (2/15) of unsuccessful nests were

lined. Presumably, dung masks the scent of the birds

and thus lining nests with dung appears to be an

adaptation to escape detection by predators.

Of five habitat types surveyed for Burrowing Owls,

sites dominated by snakeweed, cheatgrass, and

antelope bitterbrush were used by owls. Sites

dominated by grasses (primarily needlegrass,

Sandberg bluegrass, and bluebunch wheatgrass), or

rabbitbrush were not used, despite having nearly

twice the number of available badger burrows. 

Over-grazed snakeweed habitat was preferred,

where burrows were surrounded with little grass

cover conveying greater horizontal visibility than at

less grazed sites. The success of Burrowing Owls

nesting in the Columbia Basin appears to be

dependent on a combination of the availability of

properly-spaced badger burrows in preferred

habitat, shifting prey resources during the nesting

season, and on predation pressure by badgers

(Green and Anthony 1989).

In the Malheur Resource Area, BLM personnel

conducted Burrowing Owl surveys two to three

times per year for 10 years along three to four

survey routes. These data have not been analyzed,

however the observers believe no major changes

have occurred over the past 10 years (A. Bamman,

pers. commun.).

Conservation Activities: In 1982, 13 Burrowing Owls

were reintroduced by “hacking” at four artificial

burrows in the Agate Desert of Jackson County,

Oregon. Birds were obtained for reintroduction from

nests in the Klamath Valley. The young were fed for

about two months before full release. No

reintroduced Burrowing Owls were detected in

subsequent years (C. Cwiklinski, pers. commun.).

Artificial nest burrows are being installed in areas of

historic nesting by Burrowing Owls in Jackson

County at the Rogue Valley International Airport

and on private land with the goal of providing

wintering habitat and stimulating summer use as

well (C. Cwiklinski, pers. commun.). Twenty artificial

burrows were installed in e. Oregon (Umatilla and

Morrow counties) in the spring and summer of 1979

Appendix A 77
Fig. A-10. Distribution of confirmed (n = 49), probable (n = 9), and possible (n = 37) breeding activity of

Burrowing Owls in Oregon from the Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas project (Adamus et al. 2001).

78 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

to facilitate research of the species (Henny and Blus

1981). No information was available on the

continuation of this project.

In burned shrub-steppe, BLM is now to trying to

replant with seed mixes that include sagebrush and

other shrubs, and to rehabilitate cheatgrass

dominated sites by a combination of prescribed fire,

herbicide application and re-seeding with a mix of

bunch grasses and shrubs. These efforts to restore

the natural vegetation of the area may decrease the

quality of habitat preferred by Burrowing Owls.

However, BLM is also engaged in land exchanges to

consolidate and expand contiguous parcels of

Federal land; this probably has a beneficial effect on

Burrowing Owls and other wildlife by securing the

future ownership of larger blocks of habitat,

reducing the chance of future habitat conversion (A.

Bamman, pers. commun.).

Major Populations: The Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas

(Adamus et al. 2001) shows the bulk of the state’s

Burrowing Owl population in se. Oregon counties,

where they historically occurred (Gabrielson and

Jewett 1940); however current and historic densities

and numbers of breeding Burrowing Owls are

unknown.

State Status: Critical (T&E status pending, or

possible if conservation measures are not taken), in

the Willamette Valley and Klamath Mountains, High

Plains, Columbia Basin, and Blue Mountain

physiographic provinces (ODFW 1997).

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/S2?B (imperiled during

breeding season because of rarity or other factors

making the species very vulnerable to extirpation;

(?) indicates uncertainty about rank).

Habitat Use and Condition: Found in sagebrushsteppe, grasslands, pastures, roadsides, and even

airports where vegetation is sparse and terrain is

level. Also found where soil and/or vegetation has

been disturbed through overgrazing, fire,

construction, or farming; or at sites where

vegetation has been heavily clipped or grazed by

ground squirrels (Marshall et al. 1996). Burrows,

such as those left by ground squirrels and badgers,

are a necessity for breeding.

The areas of high Burrowing Owl populations are

lower elevation flat to gently rolling hills with fine

grain, deep soils. These areas are at the edge of

farmlands where past range fires have repeatedly

burned off the sagebrush and heavy grazing
apparently resulted in exotic annual grasses and

forbs becoming the dominant plant species. This

habitat contains moderate to high rodent numbers

and suitable burrows, and is grazed most years.

These conditions occur on both private and public

lands. Individual Burrowing Owl breeding sites

occasionally are found in sagebrush covered areas

(A. Bamman, pers. commun.).

Threats: Extirpation of Burrowing Owls through loss

of habitat to urbanization and irrigated agriculture

has been documented in the Rogue River Valley

(Marshall et al. 1996). Habitat conversions of this

type are probably more of a threat in n. Oregon than

se. Oregon.

Green and Anthony (1989) found predation

accounted for 20% of nest failures in n. Oregon (see

Research/Monitoring above). Occasional shooting by

the public probably has a only a small, local impact.

USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services poisons ground

squirrels and gophers, and traps badgers; these

activities could affect burrow availability. USDA/

APHIS/Plant Protection and Quarantine conducts

grasshopper control operations on a local basis

during years when grasshopper populations are

exceptionally high. Although direct poisoning is

highly unlikely given the pesticides used and

methods of application, loss of prey base might affect

some pairs of birds some years. The effects of

farmer-applied pesticides on birds nesting near and

foraging in agricultural fields has not been

documented.

Additional threats listed by Altman and Holmes

(2000) include: domestic predators (cats and dogs);

destruction of burrows through livestock trampling

in sandy soils and human disturbance (e.g., ATV use)

near nest burrows.

Literature Cited:

Adamus, P. R., K. Larsen, G. Gillson, and C. R.

Miller. 2001. Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas. Oregon

Field Ornithologists, Eugene, Oregon.

Altman, B. and A. Holmes. 2000. Conservation

strategy for landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of

eastern Oregon and Washington. OregonWashington Partners in Flight. http://

community.gorge.net/natres/pif/con_plans/

columbia.html

Gabrielson, I. N. and S. G. Jewett. 1940. Birds of the

Pacific Northwest. Oregon State College.

Green, G. A., and R. G. Anthony. 1989. Nesting

success and habitat relationships of Burrowing

Owls in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. Condor

91:347-354.

James, P. C., and R. H. M. Espie. 1997. Current

status of the Burrowing Owl in North America: an

agency survey. Pages 3-5 in J. Lincer and K.

Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, its biology

and management including the Proceedings of the

First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.

Raptor Research Report Number 9.

Henny, C. J., and L. J. Blus. 1981. Artificial burrows

provide new insight into Burrowing Owl nesting

biology. Journal of Raptor Research 15:82-85.

Marshall, D. B., M. W. Chilcote, and H. Weeks. 1996.

Species at risk: sensitive, threatened and

endangered vertebrates of Oregon. 2nd edition.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Portland, Oregon.

ODFW. 1997. Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Sensitive Species. Web page:

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/

InfoCntrWild/Diversity/senspecies.pdf

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966–2001. Version 2002.1, U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbr-pwrc.

usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html.

Appendix A 79
South Dakota

Summary: Burrowing Owls were previously

considered a locally common summer resident in

South Dakota west of the Missouri River (except

rare in the Black Hills), uncommon to the east, and

casual in the winter (South Dakota Ornithologist

Union 1991). Based on a survey of biologists, James

and Espie (1997) estimated 100 to 1,000 pairs in

South Dakota in 1992 with a stable population trend

BBS: A significant negative trend in relative

abundance was detected from 1980-2001 (Trend =

–11.4, P <0.08, n = 10). No significant trends were

noted for other survey periods. Deficiencies in data

quality were moderate (sample sizes <14, subinterval trends significantly different from each

other) (Sauer et al. 2002).

CBC: N/A.

Atlas: According to results of the South Dakota

Breeding Bird Atlas (Peterson 1995), the Burrowing

Owl is now “uncommon and scattered.”

Concentrations were noted in and near Buffalo

Gap National Grassland, Badlands National Park,

and the following counties: River Falls, Custer,

Pennington, Meade, and Shannon in sw. South

Dakota, and McPherson, Edmunds, Faulk, and Hand

in nc. South Dakota (Fig. A-11). During field work for

the South Dakota Breeding Bird Atlas, Burrowing

Owls were found in 12.1% of random bocks with totals

of 1 bird observed in each of 10 random blocks and

2-10 birds detected in each of five blocks (Peterson

1995). Of reported Burrowing Owl locations, 87 were

from prairie dog towns and 42 from were from

upland grassland sites (Peterson 1995).

Research/Monitoring: In 1991, Martell et al. (1993)

documented a density of 1 pair/68 ha (0.015 pairs/ha)

on prairie dog towns in Badlands National Park

(Pennington and Jackson counties) in sw. South

Dakota. In 1992, density on the same five towns was

1 pair/41 ha (0.024 pairs/ha) and density on three

additional towns was 1 pair/48.5 ha. (0.021 pair/ha).

The increase in Burrowing Owls detected from 1991-

92 was partially due to increases in the area

surveyed (from 819 ha to 1506 ha); however, for

towns surveyed both years, increases were noted in

the number of pairs (from 14 to 20 pairs), young (29

to 62 young), and average brood size (2.07 young/

pair to 3.10 young/pair) indicating actual population

increases between years.

Martell et al. (1993) applied the area-occupied

technique of relative abundance estimation (Iverson

and Fuller 1989) to Burrowing Owls on prairie dog

towns in Badlands National Park. They determined

the proportion of the area surveyed that was

occupied by Burrowing Owls was 0.34 (SE = 0.07) in

1991. In 1992 the proportion of the area occupied

increased to 0.57 (SE = 0.07). The probability of

detection was 0.486 (SE = 0.056) for all study areas

combined.

In the Conata Basin of Buffalo Gap National

Grassland (Pennington and Jackson counties),

Martell et al. (1993) documented 14 Burrowing Owl

broods in 1991 and 11 Burrowing Owl broods in 1992,

but did not provide a description of study area

boundaries or density estimates. MacCracken et al.

(1985) found that Burrowing Owls in the Conata

Basin used burrows in early stages of plant

succession (high forb and buffalograss cover, and

reduced blue grama and perennial plant cover)

where vegetation height was lower than the

surrounding prairie. 

Conservation Activities: Burrowing Owls are

monitored as a sensitive species by the South

Dakota Natural Heritage Program. Known

information about nesting sites is included in

environmental review comments on projects

submitted for comment to the Heritage Program.

The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe plans to maintain the

current number of prairie dogs and prairie dog

towns through a Candidate Conservation

Agreement with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (L.

Fredrickson, pers. commun.).

Major Populations: Concentrations of Burrowing

Owl observations were noted in and near Buffalo

Gap National Grassland, Badlands National Park,

and the following counties: River Falls, Custer,

Pennington, Meade, and Shannon in sw. South

Dakota, and McPherson, Edmunds, Faulk, and Hand

in nc. South Dakota (Peterson 1995).

State Status: None

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/S3S4B, SZN (S3—rare

and uncommon breeding populations in the state,

S4—widespread, abundant, and apparently secure

in state, with many occurrences, but of long-term

concern, no non-breeding occurrences).

Habitat Use and Condition: Results from the South

Dakota Breeding Bird Atlas supported the

importance of prairie dog towns to nesting

Burrowing Owls. The majority of black-tailed prairie

dogs presently occur on federal or tribal lands,

although smaller colonies on private lands are

undoubtedly important Burrowing Owl nesting

areas as well. Prairie dog numbers and acreage are

stable on the Lower Brule Sioux Tribal lands (S.

Grassel, pers. commun.).

Threats: Any threats to black-tailed prairie dogs will

impact Burrowing Owls in South Dakota. At present,

the prairie dog population appears stable, although

no systematic surveys are conducted on nesting

Burrowing Owls (E. Dowd-Stukel and D. Backlund,

pers. commun.). Rapid reductions in Richardson’s

ground squirrel abundance on private lands are also

causing loss of potential Burrowing Owl habitat (R.

Peterson, per. commun.)

80 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Fig. A-11. Distribution of Burrowing Owl breeding activity and observation in South Dakota from the South

Dakota Breeding Bird Atlas project (Peterson 1995).

Appendix A 81

Literature Cited:

Iverson, G. C. and M. R. Fuller. 1989. Area-occupied

survey techniques for nesting woodland raptors.

Pages 118-124 in Proceedings of the Midwest

Raptor Management Symposium and Workshop.

National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC

James, P. C., and R. H. M. Espie. 1997. Current

status of the Burrowing Owl in North America: an

agency survey. Pages 3-5 in J. Lincer and K.

Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, its biology

and management including the Proceedings of the

First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.

Raptor Research Report Number 9.

MacCracken, J. G., D. W. Uresk, and R. M. Hansen.

1985. Vegetation and soils of Burrowing Owl nest

sites in Conata Basin, South Dakota. Condor

87:152-154.

Martell, M. S., P. T. Redig, and J. Nibe. 1993.

Demography of the Burrowing Owl in Badlands

National Park: Final Report. The Raptor Center,

Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Peterson, R. A. 1995. South Dakota Breeding Bird

Atlas. South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union,

Aberdeen, South Dakota.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966-2001. Version 2002.1, U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbr-pwrc.

usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html.

South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union. 1991. The Birds

of South Dakota, Second Edition Aberdeen, South

Dakota.
Texas

Summary: Burrowing Owls are an uncommon to

common resident on the open prairies of the western

half of the state, east to Wilbarger County. It is a

rare migrant and winter visitor east to coastal Texas

(Texas Ornithological Society 1995). In winter,

Burrowing Owls are locally fairly common to

uncommon in the c. and s. Panhandle, but usually

withdraw from the n. Panhandle. Based on a survey

of biologists in 1992, James and Espie (1997)

estimated more than 10,000 pairs in Texas.

BBS: No significant trends were detected over any

survey period (Sauer et al. 2002).

CBC: No significant trend detected over the survey

period (1959-88) (Sauer et al. 1996).

Atlas: Unknown.

Research/Monitoring: In s. Texas (primarily the

Corpus Christi area) a monitoring effort sponsored

by the Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological

Survey-Texas Gulf Coast Field Research Station,

and the Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi was

begun in the winter of 1998-99 and continues to the

present. This cooperative project currently is

focused on documenting range, numbers, and

habitat use throughout agricultural areas of s. Texas

and to determine the response to installation of

artificial burrows. Plans are underway to trap, band,

and place radio transmitters on Burrowing Owls to

monitor over-winter movements and survival.

Ongoing collection of pellets and feathers in Texas

will continue for diet and isotope studies. (C.

Shackelford, pers. commun.).

Conservation Activities: None documented.

Conservation Recommendations: None documented.

Major Populations: Mackenzie State Park in

Lubbock. This population is currently threatened by

the city of Lubbock’s plan to eradicate prairie dogs

from the area. No other major populations

documented.

State Status: None

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/S3B (rare and uncommon

breeding populations in the state).

Habitat Use and Condition: Habitat includes culverts

along roads adjacent to plowed fields or cleared

pastures. Areas immediately around occupied

culverts have short and/or sparse vegetation. Most

of these habitats occur on private lands. County

roads allow visual sightings of many of the birds;

however, numbers of Burrowing Owls wintering on

large private ranches are unknown (C. Shackelford,

pers. commun.).

Threats: Loss of traditional grassland habitats and

associated natural burrows to agriculture and

development are a primary threat. Vehicle collisions

due to use of roadside culverts for burrows and

ingestion of pesticides from prey associated with

agricultural fields are also threats (C. Shackelford,

pers. commun.).

Literature Cited:

James, P. C., and R. H. M. Espie. 1997. Current

status of the Burrowing Owl in North America: an

agency survey. Pages 3-5 in J. Lincer and K.

Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, its biology

and management including the Proceedings of the

First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.

Raptor Research Report Number 9.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966-2001. Version 98.1, U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbr-pwrc.

usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html.

Sauer, J. R., S. Schwartz, and B. Hoover. 1996. The

Christmas Bird Count Home Page. Version 95.1

U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife

Research Center, Laurel, Maryland.

http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/cbc.html.

Texas Ornithological Society. 1995. Checklist of the

birds of Texas 3rd edition. Capital Printing, Inc.

Austin, Texas.

82 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Utah

Summary: The Burrowing Owl is an uncommon

permanent resident with localized occurrence (Behle

and Perry 1975). Populations appear to have declined

across the range; its distribution has been localized

in many areas of Utah (Utah Division of Wildlife

Resources 1998). Based on a survey of state

biologists, James and Espie (1997) estimated 1,000 to

10,000 pairs in Utah in 1992 with a decreasing

population trend.

BBS: No significant trends were detected for any

survey period (Sauer et al. 2002).

CBC: The Burrowing Owl is a casual wintering

resident in s. Utah.

Atlas: Unknown.

Research/Monitoring: Little published research was

identified for Utah.

Conservation Activities: None identified.

Major Populations: None identified.

State Status: Species of Special Concern.

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/S3B (rare and uncommon

breeding populations in the state).

Habitat Use and Condition: Not documented.

Threats: None documented

Literature Cited:

Behle, W. H., and M. L. Perry. 1975. Utah birds:

check-list, seasonal and ecological occurrence

charts and guides to bird finding. Utah Museum

of Natural History, Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City,

Utah.

James, P. C., and R. H. M. Espie. 1997. Current

status of the Burrowing Owl in North America: an

agency survey. Pages 3-5 in J. Lincer and K.

Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, its biology

and management including the Proceedings of the

First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.

Raptor Research Report Number 9.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966-2001. Version 2002.1, U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbr-pwrc.

usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 1998. Utah

Sensitive Species List. Utah Division of Wildlife

Resources homepage (http://www.nr.state.ut.us/

dwr/sensppl.htm#bird). October, 2000.

Appendix A 83

Fig. A-12. Distribution of Burrowing Owl

observations in Utah (Utah Natural Heritage

Program, A. Axel, pers. commun.).
Washington

Summary: Burrowing Owls are local and uncommon

in shrub-steppe and grassland habitats east of the

Cascades. It is widespread in the southern part of

this region, but numbers fluctuate and breeders are

limited to areas with suitable burrow sites. West of

the Cascades, the Burrowing Owl was historically a

rare migrant and winter resident of the n. Puget

Sound region. It perhaps once nested in the vicinity

of Bellingham, south of Tacoma, and Grays Harbor

(Jewett et al. 1953). Smith et al. (1997) stated that in

most areas numbers are seriously declining, and that

losses are especially pronounced in the channeled

scablands, Okanogan Valley, and se. Washington.

This statement is supported by nest site occupancy

analyses by Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife (WDFW), Wildlife Resources Data System

(unpubl. data).

BBS: No significant trends were detected over any

survey period (Sauer et al. 2002).

CBC: N/A.

Atlas: No breeding bird atlas is available for

Washington; information regarding distribution is

from the Washington Wildlife Resources Data

System (Fig. A-13). Confirmed breeding records are

concentrated in sc. Washington (east of the

Cascades), in sw. Adams, extreme w. Walla Walla,

Franklin, Grant, Benton, e. Yakima, and s. and e.

Klickitat counties. Also in w. Whitman, c. Lincoln, sw.

and n. Douglas, and s. Okanogan counties. There are

no recent breeding records or suitable habitat west

of the Cascades (Smith et al. 1997).

Research/Monitoring: WDFW surveys in 1987, 1999,

and 2000 and occasional incidental observations of

nest locations since 1960 show that the most

significant change in distribution from pre-1987 to

post-1987 is the apparent loss of owls from c.

Okanogan County along the Okanogan River plain.

GAP analysis also shows no remaining potential

habitat for owls in this region (Smith et al. 1987).

Other range changes are not as striking but involve

the loss of burrow sites in se. Yakima County and s.

Lincoln County (WDFW, Wildlife Resources Data

System, unpubl. data).

The 1987 WDFW study was originally conducted to

assess the status of the Washington State

population, and its ability to absorb losses from a

transplant program designed to re-establish

Burrowing Owls in British Columbia. Additional

nest information was collected, however, and follows

(Radke 1987). The study was concentrated in a

relatively small area of Grant (south of Ephrata), w.

Adams, and nw. Franklin counties. Of the 117 nests

found, 39% (46/117) were on county roadside rightsof-way (≤ 10 feet to the road). These data may be

biased as they were predominantly conducted while

driving roads. Only 13% (15/117) of the nests were in

areas considered ‘natural’. The remaining 45%

(52/117) were roughly equally divided between

pasture, canal and ditch banks, and vacant lots. Of all

nests, 74% were within 50 feet of roads. By far the

greatest disturbance to nests was vehicles or

recreational uses (100 nests), followed by

disturbance from agricultural operations (from

cattle operations, 17 nests; grain crop activities, 10

nests; truck crop activities, 9 nests). Disturbance

from development, industrial, and residential

activities affected 16 nests altogether. Natural

burrows accounted for 72% (84/117) of the nests; the

rest were in culverts or irrigation pipes (21%, 25/117)

or in artificial nest burrows (7%, 8/117).

In 1999 and 2000 WDFW surveyed approximately

80% of all previously documented Burrowing Owl

nesting sites in Washington. All nest sites visited

were classified as either occupied, unoccupied,

destroyed, or not found (Table A-4, WDFW, Wildlife

Resources Data System, unpubl. data).

Conservation Activities: Prairies and steppe, and

shrub-steppe habitats are listed as “Priority

Habitats” by WDFW under the Priority Habitat and

Species (PHS) Program. This designation facilitates

consideration of conservation needs and measures

during state and local land use planning. WDFW is

currently developing management guidelines to

promote the conservation of all priority habitats and

species identified under the PHS Program. This will

include conservation guidelines for prairies and

steppe, and shrub-steppe habitats and species

management guidelines for the conservation of

Burrowing Owls. WDFW also plan to conduct a state

status assessment for Burrowing Owls and searches

for Burrowing Owls will be intensified in se.

Washington (E. Cummings, pers. commun.).

Radke (1987) and Smith et al. (1997) mentioned that

artificial nest burrows have been placed by

conservation groups. No concerted or systematic

nest box programs are known, however.

84 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Fig. A-13. Distribution of Burrowing Owls burrows in Washington (Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Wildlife Resources Data System, J. Brookshier, pers. commun.). 

Appendix A 85

Table A-4. Number of occupied, unoccupied, destroyed, and not found Burrowing Owl nests located in

Washington during Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife surveys in 1999 and 2000.

Total # Sites

Year Occupied Unoccupied Destroyed Not Found Visited

1999 170 100 44 141 455

2000 195 220 54 130 599
Major Populations: Grant and Franklin counties hold

over half (55%) of nest sites in the State, occupied or

historical (WDFW, Wildlife Resources Data System,

unpubl. data 2001).

State Status: Candidate for listing as State

Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive.

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/S3B (rare and uncommon

breeding populations in the state)

Habitat Use and Condition: Most nest sites located by

Radke (1987) were near agricultural areas, and 21%

were in artificial burrows of some sort, such as

culverts and irrigation pipes. About 75% of nests

found were within 50 feet of roads. Thus, disturbed,

artificial situations are often used by these birds in

Washington.

Threats: Loss of historic nest sites to agricultural

conversion has been documented in Walla Walla

County (Smith et al. 1997). However, agriculture has

provided habitat in some areas (E. Cummings, pers.

commun.).

The Burrowing Owl is currently a candidate for

listing as Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive in

Washington. This designation serves to facilitate

consultation with WDFW regarding state and local

land use planning but no specific regulatory

protection is afforded beyond that of other native

wildlife species in Washington

Literature Cited:

Jewett,S. G., W. P. Taylor, W. T. Shaw, and J. W.

Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. Univ. of

Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Radke, M. 1987. Burrowing Owls in the Columbia

Basin, Washington, 1987. British Columbia

Conservation Foundation Report. June 28, 1987.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966-2001. Version 2002.1, U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbr-pwrc.

usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html.

Smith, M. R., P. W. Mattocks, Jr., and K. M. Cassidy.

1997. Breeding birds of Washington State. Volume

4 in: K.M. Cassidy, C.E. Grue, M.R. Smith, and

K.M. Dvornich, editors. Washington State Gap

Analysis—Final Report. Seattle Audubon Society

Publications in Zoology No. 1, Seattle,

Washington.

86 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Wyoming

Summary: Burrowing Owls occur statewide in

grasslands and open areas of shrub-steppe regions.

Burrowing Owls have been documented in all

latilong blocks in the state but are considered

uncommon (Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. 1997).

Marti and Marks (1989) listed Burrowing Owls as

common in Wyoming with an unknown population

trend. They listed more than 200 nesting pairs and

more than 200 nest sites from 1977-86, based on a

National Wildlife Federation survey of state wildlife

agencies in 1987. Based on a survey of state

biologists, James and Espie (1997) estimated 1,000 to

10,000 pairs in Wyoming in 1992 with a stable

population trend.

BBS: Significant negative declines were detected

1966-2001 (Trend = –23.7, P <0.04, n = 11). No

significant trends were detected for other survey

periods. Deficiencies in data quality were moderate

(sample sizes <14, sub-interval trends significantly

different from each other) (Sauer et al. 2002).

CBC: N/A

Atlas: No breeding bird atlas is available for

Wyoming. Burrowing Owls were recorded as

breeding in 24 of 28 latilongs and observed in all

latilongs (Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. 1997). The

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD)

maintains a database of historic and current

Burrowing Owl observations throughout Wyoming.

Records are from various sources such as the

Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. Wildlife Observation

System (WOS), agency surveys, university research

projects, and personal observations; all of which are

scrutinized for credibility (D. Keinath pers.

commun.).

Research/Monitoring: Martin (1983) recorded

Burrowing Owl observations while conducting day

and night searches for black-footed ferrets in sc. and

sw. Wyoming from June through September of 1978-

82. He found 86 Burrowing Owls on 34 of 426 (8.0%)

white-tailed prairie dog colonies. This included

14,349 ha searched on 16 colonies in Sweetwater, 14

in Carbon, three in Uinta, and one in Lincoln

counties. Nest burrows with young were

documented on 10 (2.4%) colonies (2.7 ± 0.5 young /

nest, range 1-5). Burrowing Owl density on whitetailed prairie dog colonies was one adult/172.5 ha.

Low Burrowing Owl density was attributed to taller

vegetation and less open habitat on white-tailed

versus black-tailed prairie dog colonies (Martin

1983). Colonies occupied by Burrowing Owls

averaged 72.8 ± 13.2 ha (n = 33; range 0.8-325.1)

with 31.6 ± 6.9 burrows / ha (n = 25; range 4.7-

167.2). Colonies with owl nests averaged 74.0 ± 12.8

ha (n = 10; range 27.5-147.8) with 20.0 ± 2.7 burrows

/ ha (n = 9; range 7.2-34.3; Martin 1983).

The WYNDD (June 2000) has documented 43

Burrowing Owl occurrences in the state. An

“occurrence” is a locality where multiple Burrowing

Owls or confirmed breeding/nesting behavior have

been documented. An occurrence generally

represents an established prairie dog town that

reliably contains several nesting pairs of owls each

year (Keinath pers. commun.).

In 1999 and 2000, the Rocky Mountain Bird

Observatory (RMBO) conducted roadside surveys of

potential Burrowing Owl habitat in se. Wyoming

including most of Platte, Goshen, and Laramie

counties, and extreme s. Niobrara County. In 1999,

RMBO located 71 colonies of Burrowing Owls,

totaling 180 individuals (Hutchings et al. 1999). In

2000, they located 107 sites with 575 Burrowing

Owls; site reoccupancy was 66% between 1999 and

2000 (T. VerCauteren pers. commun.).

In 1998, the U.S. Forest Service conducted surveys

for Burrowing Owls on black-tailed prairie dog

towns within the Great Plains National Grasslands

(Sidle et al. 2001). In the n. Great Plains (including

Wyoming), 196 (59%) of 330 active towns were

occupied by Burrowing Owls, and 12 (25%) of 48

inactive towns had owls. However, only 16% of

prairie dog towns on Thunder Basin National

Grassland in northeastern Wyoming had owls.

Furthermore, Sidle et al. (2001) noted that surveys

in 1995 failed to locate Burrowing Owls on Thunder

Basin, but did not provide information on the extent

or conditions of surveys.

Korfanta et al. (2001) examined Burrowing Owl

sightings in the WOS. Burrowing Owl sightings

were broadly distributed throughout Wyoming, with

the highest concentrations occurring in the southern

half of the state (Fig. A-14). Two trends were evident

from the WOS data (Figure A-15): numbers of

records generally increased between 1974-80, while

record numbers decreased between 1981-97. There

was a significant, negative linear relationship (P

=0.002, r2 = 0.64) between numbers of Burrowing

Owl sightings and time for the 1986-97 subset of the

WOS data (Fig. A-15). However, there may be

potential reporting bias in the WOS, which might

obscure real population trends.

Korfanta et al. (2001) surveyed 103 historic sites and

85 random sites selected on the basis of vegetation in

eastern Wyoming in 1999. A total of 37 Burrowing

Owls were seen at 16 sites; 36 on WOS historical

sites (n = 103), one on a “high probability” site (n =

55), and none on “low probability” sites (n = 30).

High probability sites were comprised of northern

mixed- or short-grass prairie while low probability

sites contained sub-optimal Burrowing Owl habitat

such as sagebrush or open ground. A total of 43% of

occupied sites (n = 16) and 10% of unoccupied sites

(n = 168) were also occupied by black- or whitetailed prairie dogs. Twenty-percent of the occupied

sites were currently or recently (within the previous

year) grazed by cattle, sheep, or buffalo.

Conservation Activities: Burrowing Owls are

monitored and managed within the vicinity of

surface mines as mandated by the federal Surface

Appendix A 87
Fig. A-14. Historic Burrowing Owl records (dots) from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department Wildlife

Observation System and reoccupancy survey sites with Burrowing Owls (diamonds) in 1999 (from Korfanta

et al. 2001).

Fig. A-15. Numbers of Burrowing Owl records per year in the Wyoming Game and Fish Department Wildlife

Observation System. The trend line for the 1986 – 1997 period represents a period of presumed consistent

search effort (from Korfanta et al. 2001).

88 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Year

Number of Burrowing Owl Records
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30

U.S.C. 1201).

Major Populations: Burrowing Owl sightings are

distributed primarily in e. and s. Wyoming with

higher concentrations around Torrington, Sheridan,

and Rawlins (Fig. A-14) although this may reflect a

reporting bias in WOS data whereby owls are more

readily detected near population centers (Korfanta

et al. 2001). Hutchings et al. (1999) found 107 sites

with Burrowing Owls in Platte, Goshen, Laramie,

and s. Niobrara counties in 2000. Significant

potential habitat exists on Thunder Basin National

Grassland; however, few Burrowing Owls were

documented during 1995 and 1998 surveys of prairie

dog towns within the Grassland (Sidle et al. 2001).

State Status: Species of Special Concern

(Category 4)

Natural Heritage Rank: G4/S3B, SZN (rare and

uncommon breeding populations in the state, no nonbreeding occurrences)

Habitat Use and Condition: During re-occupancy

surveys of historic nest sites in e. Wyoming,

Korfanta et al. (2001) found 43% of Burrowing Owls

observed in 1999 were associated with prairie dog

colonies. Only one Burrowing Owl was located

during surveys of 85 random sites in the same

region, which included 55 high probability sites in

northern mixed- or short-grass prairie and 30 low

probability sites with sagebrush, irrigated

croplands, or desert shrub as the dominant cover

type.

Only 1.9% of the Great Plains National Grasslands

deemed suitable for prairie dogs was inhabited by

the species (Sidle et al. 2001). The U.S. Forest

Service estimated Thunder Basin National

Grassland contains 1,013 ha of active prairie dog

towns at approximately 121 burrows/ha. National

Grasslands in general are fragmented, making

active prairie dog management difficult, and there is

no concerted effort to restore prairie dog towns.

Despite this, Great Plains National Grasslands offer

abundant potential habitat for prairie dogs and

therefore, Burrowing Owls (Sidle et al. 2001).

Threats: Destruction of prairie dog habitat and

rodent control are believed to have reduced

Burrowing Owl numbers in the state (Wyoming

Game and Fish 1977, Martin 1983, Sidle et al. 2001).

Sylvatic plague outbreaks in prairie-dog populations

have also reduced available Burrowing Owl habitat

in Wyoming (USFWS 2000). Recreational shooting

of prairie dogs may also significantly influence

population size and therefore, available Burrowing

Owl habitat in portions of Wyoming.

Literature Cited:

Hutchings, S., M. Carter, E. Atkinson, T.

VerCauteren, C. Finley, S. Gillihan, and J.

Nocedal. 1999. Prairie Partners: Promoting

stewardship of shortgrass prairie. Unpubl. Rep.,

Colorado Bird Observatory, Brighton, Colorado.

Korfanta, N. M., L. W. Ayers, S. H. Anderson, and D.

B. McDonald. 2001. A preliminary assessment of

Burrowing Owl population status in Wyoming.

Journal of Raptor Research 35:337-343.

James, P. C., and R. H. M. Espie. 1997. Current

status of the Burrowing Owl in North America:

An agency survey. Pages 3-5 in J. Lincer and K.

Steenhof, editors. The Burrowing Owl, its biology

and management including the Proceedings of the

First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.

Raptor Research Report Number 9.

Marti, C. D., and J. S. Marks. 1989. Medium-sized

owls. Pp. 124-133 In: B. A. Giron Pendleton, editor.

Proceedings of the Western Raptor Management

Symposium and Workshop, National Wildlife

Federation, Washington, DC

Martin, S. J. 1983. Burrowing Owl occurrence on

white-tailed prairie dog colonies. Journal of Field

Ornithology 54:422-423.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966-2001. Version 2002.1, U.S.

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html

Sidle, J. G., M. Ball, D. Weber, J. Chynoweth, G. Foli,

R. Hodorff, G. Moravek, and R. Peterson, D.

Svingen. 2001. Occurrence of Burrowing Owls in

prairie dog towns on Great Plains. Journal of

Raptor Research 35:316-321.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Endangered

and threatened wildlife and plants: 12-month

finding for a petition to list the black-tailed prairie

dog as Threatened. Proposed Rules. Federal

Register 65:5476-5488 (Feb. 4, 2000).

Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. 1997. Atlas of Birds,

Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians in Wyoming.

Wyoming Game and Fish Dept., Wildlife Division,

Biological Services Section, Lander, Wyoming.

Appendix A 89
Arkansas, Illinois, 

Missouri, Wisconsin

Summary: IL, MO, WI: Vagrant; AR: Irregular

migrant and winter resident

BBS: N/A

CBC: N/A

Atlas: N/A

Research/Monitoring: No research identified.

Conservation Activities: No conservation activities

reported.

Major Populations: None.

State Status:

AR: State—None. There are a few scattered,

records in the 1960’s in Lonoke County. Single birds

have been reported in Arkansas, Craighead, Cross,

Crittenden, Jefferson, Mississippi, Pope, and Prairie

counties (James and Neal 1986)

IL: Status—Nongame Protected. The Burrowing

Owl is a very rare spring vagrant in n. and c. Illinois

(Illinois Natural Resources Information Network

2000). No breeding records exist.

MO: Status—None. The Burrowing Owl is transient

in w. Missouri and accidental in eastern Missouri

during migration. It is an accidental summer and

winter resident with one confirmed breeding record.

WI: State—None. The Burrowing Owl is a vagrant

in Wisconsin. Undocumented historic observations

suggest potential isolated breeding. There were 12

accepted state records between 1939 and 1992 (R.

Domagalski, pers. commun.).

Natural Heritage Rank: AR: Unknown; IL: SA

(Accidental in State); MO, WI: S? (Unranked in

State).

Habitat Use and Condition: Unknown

Threats: Unknown

Literature Cited:

Illinois Natural History Information Network. 2000.

Illinois Birds: Burrowing Owl (Athene

cunicularia). Illinois Natural History Survey

webpage (http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/pub/ifwis/

birds/index.html) version August, 2000.

James, D. A., and J. C. Neal. 1986. Arkansas Birds:

Their distribution and Abundance. University of

Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

90 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Below is a summary of conservation

recommendations from western states gleaned from

the literature, State wildlife agencies, Partners in

Flight Bird Conservation Plans, and researchers in

the field. Sources of the summarized conservation

recommendations for each state are listed at the end

of this section. Discussion of on-going conservation

activities in each state can be found in Appendix A.

There is considerable variability in the

recommendations, but they are generally organized

into six categories (Table B-1). No recommendations

were found for Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma,

Texas, or Utah.

Statewide Management Strategies

A statewide management strategy was suggested

for Burrowing Owls in California, addressing ground

squirrel control policies, fire management and

agricultural practices, and land management on golf

courses, airports, and private lands. Additionally, it

was recommended the State relocate Burrowing

Owls threatened by development, while striving to

maintain populations encircled by development.

Recommendations in Nevada included development

of Best Management Practices for rangeland

pesticides and minimizing use, particularly in areas

of high Burrowing Owl density. The impacts of offroad vehicles could be mitigated by adjustment of

sanctioned event routes and closure of casual use in

Burrowing Owl breeding centers, presumably

regulated by State and Federal agencies.

Artificial Burrows

Artificial Burrows as a means of maintaining current

populations or encouraging populations to immigrate

to new sites was recommended in California, Idaho,

and Nevada. Care was suggested in Nevada to place

artificial burrows, whether used as mitigation or not,

in protected areas suitable to support owls. The

suggestion of a “Burrowing Owl trail,” as with

bluebirds, was made in Minnesota.

Relocation

Relocation of colonies away from impending

development was suggested in California, where

development pressure in several areas of the state is

especially great, although most relocations were

unsuccessful.

Surveys and Research

Surveys were recommended in California,

Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada (Mojave Desert

region), North Dakota, and South Dakota, either to

locate new nest sites, monitor known sites, or both.

Survey recommendations in North Dakota included

the development of a database of incidental sightings

in the State. Research recommendations in North

Dakota included detailed studies of Burrowing Owl

reproductive success and survival (particularly on

prairie dog colonies). In Nevada, research on the

impacts of rangeland pesticides and off-road vehicles

on Burrowing Owls, and on the degree to which

populations are reliant on agriculture was

recommended.

Education

Education of people who shoot ground squirrels and

prairie dogs was recommended in Colorado,

Minnesota, and Montana. Farmers and off-road

vehicle enthusiasts are suggested targets of

education in Nevada. In Nevada, it was suggested

that USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service

(NRCS) extension services could help to educate the

farming community regarding the benefits of field

margins as wildlife habitat, the effects of the

indiscriminate use of insecticides and rodenticides,

and the advantages of maintaining high raptor

populations to control pests on crop and pasture

lands.

91

Appendix B: Summary of Conservation

Recommendations for Burrowing Owls
Habitat Protection

Habitat protection and management, and protection

and management of burrowing mammals was

suggested in several states. Recommendations

included the following: introduce fire in shrub-steppe

to increase grassland near cropland, reduce the

conversion of grasslands and pasture to cultivation,

and maintain pesticide- and herbicide-free zones of

600-m radius around burrows (Idaho); leave drain

ditches unburned and ditch banks and turnrows

undisturbed (Nevada); protect burrow sites

(Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada); establish

conservation easements with private landowners to

secure good owl habitats (Nevada); maintain open

ground cover >40%, and native grass cover <40%

and <40 cm tall on average, and maintain a 200-m

buffer around nest burrows where human activities

are prohibited (Oregon and Washington); maintain

100-300 m buffers around nest burrows (Colorado);

preserve shortgrass habitat and manage for ground

squirrels and badgers (Minnesota); preserve salt

desert scrub habitat and its burrowing mammal

community (Nevada); manage plague in prairie dog

towns and change regulations regarding shooting of

prairie dogs and ground squirrels (Montana); survey

prairie dog colonies for burrowing owls and

reevaluate hunting of prairie dogs (Nebraska and

South Dakota); manage habitats for prairie dogs

(North Dakota) and restore former prairie dog

colonies on National Grasslands (Wyoming);

preserve habitat for burrow providers (Oregon and

Washington); and work with developers in urban and

suburban areas to preserve open space within

developments for Burrowing Owls (Nevada).

Sources of Conservation

Recommendations

California

California Burrowing Owl Consortium 

http://www2.ucsc.edu/scpbrg/owls.htm

J. Barclay, pers. commun.

Colorado

Coloardo Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan.

2000. http://rmb.wantjava.com/bcp/index.htm

Idaho

Belthoff, J. R., and R. A. King. 1997. Between-Year

Movements and Nest Burrow Use by Burrowing

Owls in Southwestern Idaho. Technical Bulletin No.

97-3, Idaho Bureau of Land Management.

Leptich, D. J. 1994. Agriculture development and its

influence on raptors in southern Idaho. Nothwest

Science 68:167-171.

Rich, T. 1984. Monitoring Burrowing Owl

populations: implications of burrow re-use. Wildlife

Society Bulletin 12:178-180.

Rich, T. 1986. Habitat and nest-site selection by

Burrowing Owls in the sagebrush steppe of Idaho.

Journal of Wildlife Management 50:548-555.

Minnesota

Coffin, B. and L. Pfannmuller. 1988. Minnesota’s

Endangered Flora & Fauna. University of

Minnesota Press.

Martell, M. S., J. Schladweiler, and F. Cuthbert.

2001. Status and attempted reintroduction of

Burrowing Owls in Minnesota. Journal of Raptor

Research 35:331-336.

92 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

Table B-1: General categories of conservation recommendations for Burrowing Owls from states for which

recommendations were found1.

CA ID MN MT NE NV ND OR SD WA WY

Statewide Management Strategy ◆ ◆

Artificial Burrows ◆◆◆ ◆

Relocate Owls ◆

Surveys & Research ◆ ◆ ◆◆◆ ◆

Education ◆◆ ◆

Habitat Protection & Management,

& Burrowing Animal Management ◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆

1–No recommendations were found for Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, or Utah.
Montana

Knowles, C. J. In review. A Review of Burrowing

Owl Observations Recorded in Montana 1964-1999.

FaunaWest Wildlife Consultants Rept., Boulder,

Montana.

Restani, M., L. R. Rau, and D. L. Flath. 2001.

Nesting ecology Of Burrowing Owls occupying

prairie dog towns in southeastern Montana. Journal

of Raptor Research 35:296-303.

Nebraska

Desmond, M. J., and J. A. Savidge. 1999. Satellite

burrow use by Burrowing Owl chicks and its

influence on nest fate. Pages 128-130 in P. D. Vickery

and J. R. Herkert, editors. Ecology and conservation

of grassland birds of the western hemisphere.

Studies in Avian Biology 19.

Nevada

Neel, L. 1999. Nevada Partners in Flight Bird

Conservation Plan. Nevada Partners in Flight.

http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/pl-nv-10.pdf

North Dakota

R. Murphy, pers. commun.

Oregon

Altman, B., and A. Holmes. 2000. Conservation

strategy for landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of

eastern Oregon and Washington, version 1.0.

Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight.

South Dakota

E. Dowd Stukel and D. Backlund, pers. commun.

Washington

Altman, B., and A. Holmes. 2000. Conservation

strategy for landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of

eastern Oregon and Washington, version 1.0.

Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight.

Wyoming

Korfanta, N. M., L. W. Ayers, S. H. Anderson, and D.

B. McDonald. 2001. A preliminary assessment of

Burrowing Owl population status in Wyoming.

Journal of Raptor Research 35:337-343.

Sidle, J. G., M. Ball, T. Byer, J. J. Chynoweth, G. Foli,

R. Hodorff, G. Moravek, R. Peterson, and D.

Svingen. 2001. Occurrence of Burrowing Owls in

black-tailed prairie dog colonies of Great Plains

National Grasslands. Journal of Raptor Research

35:316-321.

Appendix B 93
Allen, Harriet

Wildlife Management Program

Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

600 Capitol Way N.

Olympia, WA 98501-1901

Ph: (360) 902-2200

Alvaro, Jaramillo

San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory

1290 Hope Street, P.O. Box 247

Alviso, CA 95002-0247

Ph: (408) 946-6548

Anderson, David

Fisheries and Wildlife Department

University of Minnesota

200 Hodson Hall

St. Paul, MN 55108

Ph: (612) 626-1222

E-mail: dea@fw.umn.edu

Anderson, Stanley

Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research

University of Wyoming

Box 3166, University Station

Laramie, WY 82071

Arrowwood, Patricia

Department of Fish & Wildlife Sciences

NMSU, P.O. Box 30003, Campus Box 4901

Las Cruces, NM 88003-0003

Ph: (505) 526-9427

E-mail: Parrowoo@nmsu.edu

Atkinson, Eric

Marmot’s Edge Conservation

4580 E. Baseline Road

Belgrade, MT 59714

Ph: (406) 586-1585

E-mail: sawwhet@mcn.net

Axel, Anne, Information Manager

Utah Natural Heritage Program

Division of Wildlife Resources

1594 West North Temple

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6301

Ph: (801) 538-4759

E-mail: anneaxel@utah.gov

Bammann, Albert, Wildlife Biologist

Bureau of Land Management

100 Oregon Street

Vale, OR 97918

Ph: (541) 473-6283

E-mail: al-bammann@or.blm.gov

Banasch, Ursula

1223 85th Street

Edmonton, AB T6K 1X7

Canada

Ph: (780) 951-8678

E-mail: ursula.banasch@ec.gc.ca

Barclay, Jack

Albion Environmental, Inc.

1414 Soquel Avenue, No. 205

Santa Cruz, CA 95062

Ph: (831) 426-6847

E-mail: jbarclay@albionenvironmental.com

Beauvais, Gary, Heritage Zoologist

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

1604 Grand Avenue, Suite 2

Laramie, WY 82070-4332

Ph: (307) 766-3023

E-mail: beauvais@uwyo.edu

Belthoff, Jim

Department of Biology

Boise State University

Boise, ID 83725-1515

Ph: (208) 426-4033

E-mail: Jbeltho@boisestate.edu

Benz, Carl, Assistant Field Supervisor

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Coast/Desert

2493 Portola Road, Suite B

Ventura, CA 93003

Ph: (805) 644-1766

E-mail: Carl_Benz@r1.fws.gov

Bildstein, Keith

Hawk Mountain Sanctuary

1700 Hawk Mountain Road

Kempton, PA 19529-9449

Ph: (610) 756-6961

E-mail: bildstein@say.acnatsci.org

94 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

Appendix C: Distribution List for the Burrowing

Owl Status Assessment and Conservation Plan
Bird, David

Avian Science & Conservation Center

McGill University

21111 Lakeshore Road

Ste. Anne De Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9

Canada

Ph: (514) 398-7760

E-mail: bird@nrs.mcgill.ca

Botelho, Eugene

58 Ohio Street

New Bedford, MA O2745

Ph: (508) 995-1633

E-mail: 110310.1752@compuserve.com

Brechtel, Steve

Alberta Fish & Wildlife Division

9945-108 Street

Edmonton, AB T5K 2G6

Canada

Ph: (780) 422-9535

E-mail: steve.brechtel@gov.ab.ca

Britten, Mike

National Park Service

12795 Alameda Parkway

Denver, CO 80225

Ph: (303) 987-6705

E-mail: Mike_Britten@nps.gov

Brown, Nikolle, Wildlife Biologist

7779 N. Leonard

Clovis, CA 93611

Ph: (559) 298-8574

E-mail: black-catnik@worldnet.att.net

Brunson, Ken, Nongame Coordinator

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks

512 SE 25th Avenue

Pratt, KS 67124-8174

Ph: (316) 672-0792

E-mail: kenb@wp.state.ks.us

Burkett, Ester

California Department of Fish & Game

Wildlife Management Division

1416 Ninth Street

P.O. Box 944209

Sacramento, CA 95814

Busby, Bill, Associate Scientist

Kansas Biological Survey

2041 Constant Avenue

Lawrence, KS 66047

Ph: (785) 864-7692

E-mail: w.busby@falcon.cc.ukans.edu

Butts, Ken, Refuge Manager

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Bitter Lake NWR

P.O. Box 7

Roswell, NM 88202-0007

Ph: (505) 622-6755 ext. 19

E-mail: Kenneth_Butts@fws.gov

Byer, Tim

Thunder Basin National Grassland

2250 E. Richards Street

Douglas, WY 82633

E-mail: tbyer/r2_mbr@fs.fed.us

Campbell, Erick, Wildlife Specialist

Bureau of Land Management

1340 Financial Boulevard, P.O. Box 12000

Reno, NV 89520-0006

Ph: (775) 861-6471

E-mail: Erick_Campbell@nv.blm.gov

Cannings, Dick

Bird Studies Canada

1330 Debeck Road, S. 11, C. 96, RR#1

Naramata, BC V0H 1N0

Canada

Ph: (250) 496-4049

E-mail: cannings@vip.net

Cerovski, Andrea, Nongame Bird Biologist

Wyoming Game & Fish Department

260 Buena Vista

Lander, WY 82520

Ph: (307) 332-7723 x232

E-mail: acerov@state.wy.us

Chavez-Ramirez, Felipe

Platte River Whooping Crane Maintenance Trust

6611 W. Whooping Crane Dr.

Wood River, NE 68883

Ph: (308) 384-4633

E-mail: fchavezramirez@aol.com

Chew, Lincoln

University of Lethbridge

4401 University Drive

Lethbridge, AB T1K 3M4

Canada

Ph: (403) 329-2245

Chynoweth, James, Wildlife Biologist

Cimarron National Grassland, US Forest Service

P.O. Box J

Elkhard, KS 67950

E-mail: jchynoweth/r2_psicc@fs.fed.us

Clayton, Kort

Thunderbird Wildlife Consulting, Inc.

P.O. Box 437

Wright, WY 82732-0437

Ph: (307) 464-6757

E-mail: clayton@vcn.com

Collister, Douglas, President

URSUS Ecosystem Management Ltd.

3426 Lane Crescent SW

Calgary, AB T3E 5X2

Canada

Ph: (403) 246-2697

E-mail: collis@telusplanet.net

Appendix C 95
Conrad, Shawn

Comanche National Grassland

P.O. Box 127

Springfield, CO 81073

Conway, Courtney

Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife

Research Unit

104 Bio Science East

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ 85721

Ph: (520) 626-3775

E-mail: cconway@ag.arizona.edu 

Corman, Troy, Neotropical Migratory Bird

Coordinator

Arizona Game and Fish Department

2221 West Greenway Road

Phoenix, AZ 85023-4399

Ph: (602) 789-3508

E-mail: tcorman@gf.state.az.us

Cox, Nancy

4426 San Isidro NW

Albuquerque, NM 87107

Ph: (505) 345-2385

E-mail: sora@flash.net

Craig, Gerald

Colorado Division of Wildlife

317 West Prospect

Fort Collins, CO 80526-2003

Ph: (303) 297-1192

E-mail: Gerald.craig@state.co.us

Culbert, Doug

Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural

History Section

Main Floor, North Tower, Petroleum Plaza

9945–108 Street

Edmonton, AB T5K 2G6

Canada

Ph: (403) 427-6750

Cummins, Eric

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

600 Capitol Way North

Olympia, WA 98501-1091

Dawson, Neil, Wildlife Assessment Program Leader

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, NW Region

25th Side Road, RR# 1

Thunder Bay, ON P7C 4T9

Canada

Ph: (807) 939-3120

E-mail: neil.dawson@mnr.gov.on.ca

Davis, Stephen

Acting Director

Watershed Monitoring & Assessment

SK Watershed Authority

101-2022 Cornwall St.

Regina, SK S4P 2K5

Ph: (306) 787-0711

E-mail: sdavis@wetland.sk.ca

DeSante, David, President

Institute for Bird Populations

P.O. Box 1346

Point Reyes Station, CA 94956

Ph: (415) 663-2052

E-mail: ddesante@birdpop.org

DeSmet, Ken, Endangered Species Biologist

Manitoba Natural Resources, Wildlife Branch

Box 520

Melita, MB R0M 1L0

Canada

Ph: (204) 522-3719

E-mail: kdesmet@gov.mb.ca

Desmond, Martha, Assistant Professor

Dept. of Fishery and Wildlife Sciences

NMSU, Campus Box 4901

P.O. Box 30003

Las Cruces, NM 88003-0003

Ph: (505) 646-1217

E-mail: mdesmond@nmsu.edu

Dillon, Jeff

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service–ES

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office

2600 S.E. 98th Avenue, Suite 100

Portland, OR 97266-1398

Ph: (503) 231-6179

Dinan, John J., Nongame Bird Program

Manager

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

2200 N. 33rd Street, P.O. Box 30370

Lincoln, NE 68503-0370

Ph: (402) 471-5440

E-mail: jdinan@ngpc.state.ne.us

Dinsmore, Jim

Iowa State University

Department of Animal Ecology

Aimes, IA 50011

Ph: (515) 294-7669

E-mail: Oldcoot@iastate.edu

Dose, Jennifer L.

Comanche National Grassland

P.O. Box 127

Springfield, CO 81073

Dowd Stukel, Eileen

South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish & Parks

523 East Capitol Avenue

Pierre, SD 57501-3182

Ph: (605) 773-4229

E-mail: dowdstukel@state.sd.us

Dunning, Jr., John B.

Department of Forestry & Natural Resources

Purdue University

West Layfayette, IN 47907

Ph: (765) 494-3565

E-mail: bdunning@fnr.purdue.edu

96 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Duxbury, Jason M.

Department of Renewable Resources

751 General Service Building

University of Alberta

Edmonton, AB T6J 4T8

Canada

Ph: (403) 951-8671

E-mail: Jason.duxbury@ec.gc.ca

Dyer, Orville

British Columbia Dept. of Environment & Parks

3547 Skaha Lake Road

Penticton, BC V2A 7K2

Canada

Ph: (604) 490-8244

Email: orville.dyer@gems4.gov.bc.ca

Eliason, Bonita

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

500 Lafayette Road, Box 7

St. Paul, MN 55155

Ph: (612) 297-2276

Enderson, James H.

Department of Biology, Colorado College

Colorado Springs, CO 80903

Ph: (719) 389-6400

Email: Jenderson@cc.colorado.edu

Erickson, Carol

Fort Pierre National Grassland

124 S. Euclid Avenue, Box 417

Pierre, SD 57501

Espie, Rick, Wildlife Biologist

Saskatchewan Environment & Res. Mgmt.

Fish and Wildlife Branch, Room 436

Regina, SK S4S 5W6

Canada

Ph: (306) 787-2461

E-mail: rick.espie.erm@govmail.gov.sk.ca

Ethier, Thomas

Saskatchewan Museum of Natural History

Regina, SK S4P 3V

Canada

E-mail: tom.ethier@gems9.gov.bc.ca

Felskie, Heather

Saskatchewan Burrowing Owl Interpretive Center

Box 1467

Moose Jaw, SK S6H 4R3

Canada

Ph: (306) 692-8710

E-mail: sboic@sask.compatico.ca

Finley, Carol

Hawks Aloft, Inc.

P.O. Box 10028

Albuquerque, NM 87184

Finn, Jeff, Wildlife Biologist

California Department of Fish and Game

13515 Schooner Hill Drive

Gross Valley, CA 95945

Ph: (530) 477-0308

E-mail: jfinn@dfg.ca.gov

Foli, Gary

Little Missouri National Grassland

Box 8

Watford City, ND 58854

E-mail: gfoli/r1_dakotaprairie@fs.fed.us

Fox, Glen

877 Ridley Blvd.

Ottawa, ON K2A 3P4

Canada

Ph: (819) 997-6076

E-mail: glen.fox@ec.gc.ca

Fraser, James

Department of Fish & Wildlife Science

Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Blacksburg, VA 24061

Ph: (540) 231-6064

E-mail: fraser@vt.edu

Fredrickson, Larry, Wildlife Biologist

Department of Natural Resources

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe

P.O. Box 48

Fort Thomas, SD 57339

Ph: (605) 245-2187

E-mail: wildlife@rapidnet.com

Freilich, Jerry, Science Director

The Nature Conservancy

258 Main St., Suite 200

Lander, WY 82520

Ph: (307) 332-2973 ext. 3008

E-mail: jfreilich@rmisp.com

Fyfe, Richard

P.O. Box 3263

Fort Saskatchewan, AB T8L 2T2

Canada

Ph: (403) 998-9552

E-mail: fyferl@connect.ab.ca

Garza, Alfredo

Instituto de Ecologia

Centro Regional Durango

Apartado Postal 632

34000 Durango, DGO

Mexico

Gelvin-Innvaer, Lisa

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Nongame Wildlife Program (Region 4)

261 Hwy 15 South

New Ulm, MN 56073

Ph: (507) 359-6033

E-mail: lisa.gelvin-innvaer@dnr.state.mn.us

Appendix C 97
Gervais, Jennifer

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

104 Nash Hall

Oregon State University

Corvallis, OR 97331

Geupel, Geoff, Landbird Program Coord.

Point Reyes Bird Observatory

4990 Shoreline Hwy.

Stinson Beach, CA 94970

Ph: (415) 868-1221

E-mail: ggeupel@prbo.org

Gifford, Dan, Wildlife Biologist

California Department of Fish and Game

1701 Nimbus Road

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-4599

Ph: (916) 369-8851

E-mail: dgifford@dfg.ca.gov

Gilmer, David

USGS-BRD

6924 Tremont Road

Dixon, CA 95620

Ph: (707) 678-0682 ext. 614

E-mail: dave_gilmer@usgs.gov

Gilmore, Doug

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Box 5003

Red Lake, ON P0V 2M0

Canada

Ph: (807) 727-1336

E-mail: doug.gilmore@mnr.gov.on.ca

Gould, Gordon

California Department of Fish & Game

Wildlife Management Division

P.O. Box 944209

Sacramento, CA 95814

Graham, Gary

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

3000 IH 35 South, Suite 100

Austin, TX 78704

Grassel, Shaun, Wildlife Biologist

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

Dept. of Wildlife, Fish, and Recreation

P.O. Box 246

Lower Brule, SD 57548

Ph: (605) 473-5666

E-mail: lbwfr@wcenet.com

Green, Mike, Landbird Biologist

US Fish and Wildlife Service

911 N.E. 11th Avenue

Portland, OR 97232

Ph: (503) 231-6164

E-mail: Michael_Green@fws.gov

Grensell, William

Nongame Bird and Mammal Section

California Department of Fish and Game

Wildlife Management Division

1416 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Ph: (916) 654-3828

Grettenberger, John

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered Species Consultation and Technical

Asst. Branch

510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102

Lacey, WA 98503

Ph: (360) 753-6044

E-mail: John_Grettenberger@r1.fws.gov

Grissley, Kerry, Manager

Operation Grassland Community

Alberta Fish & Game Association

6924-104th St.

Edmonton, AB T6H 2L7

Canada

Ph: (780) 437-2342

E-mail: office@afga.org

Grondahl, Chris

North Dakota Game and Fish Department

100 N. Bismark Expressway

Bismark, ND 58501-5095

Ph: (701) 328-6612

E-mail: Cgrondah@state.nd.us

Haley, Katherine

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

104 Nash Hall

Oregon State University

Corvallis, OR 97331

Hanebury, Lou, Wildlife Biologist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2900–4th Ave. N., Suite 301

Billings, MT 59101-1228

Ph: (541) 737-1957

E-mail: Lou_Hanebury@fws.gov

Harvey, Dwight

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Listing Branch

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office

2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605

Sacramento, CA 95825

Ph: (916) 414-6644

E-mail: Dwight_Harvey@fws.gov

Haug, Elizabeth, Biologist

P.O. Box 54, E R.R. 5

Saskatoon, SK S7K 3J8

Canada

Ph: (306) 975-9194

E-mail: Didiuka@sprint.ca

98 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Hawkins, Cole

3612 Washoe Street

Davis, CA 95616-5087

Ph: (530) 753-1927

E-mail: chawkins@dcn.davis.ca.us

Hays, Dave, Endangered Species Specialist

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Wildlife Diversity Division

600 Capitol Way N.

Olympia, WA 98501-1091

Ph: (360) 902-2366

E-mail: HAYSDWH@dfw.wa.gov

Hays, Loren

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Listing and

Recovery

2730 Loker Avenue West

Carlsbad, CA 92008

Ph: (760) 431-9440

E-mail: Loren_Hays@r1.fws.gov

Henderson, Carrol

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Nongame Wildlife Program

Box 7, 500 Lafayette Road

St. Paul, MN 55155

Ph: (651) 296-0700

E-mail: carro.henderson@dnr.state.mn.us

Herron, John

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

3000 IH 35 South, Suite 100

Austin, TX 78704

Hetrick, Mindy

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR, Bldg. 120

Commerce, City CO 80022

Ph: (303) 289-0232

E-mail: mhetrick@rma.army.mil

Hickman, Melynda

Oklahoma Dept. of Wildlife Conservation

1801 North Lincoln Blvd.

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Ph: (405) 521-4619

Hilliard, Mark, Wildlife Specialist

Bureau of Land Management

1387 South Vinnell Way

Boise, ID 83709-1657

Ph: (208) 373-4000

E-mail: Mark_Hilliard@blm.gov

Hinam, Heather

Department of Zoology

University of Manitoba

Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2

Canada

Ph: (204) 253-7115

E-mail: umhinamh@cc.umanitoba.ca

Hjertaas, Dale 

15 Olson Place

Regina, SK S4S 2J6

Canada

Ph: (306) 584-2835

E-mail: dale.hjertaas.erm@govmail.gov.sk.ca

Hodorff, Robert, Wildlife Biologist

Buffalo Gap National Grassland

Fall River Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service

209 N. River Street

Hot Springs, SD 57747

Ph: (605) 745-4107

E-mail: rhodorff@fs.fed.us

Holmes, Aaron

PRBO

4990 Shoreline Hwy.

Stinson Beach, CA 94970

Ph: (415) 868-1221

Holroyd, Geoffrey

Canadian Wildlife Service

4123–122 Street

Edmonton, AB T6J 1Z1

Canada

Ph: (780) 951-8689

E-mail: geoffrey.holroyd@ec.gc.ca

Holt, Denver

Owl Research Institute

P.O. Box 39

Charlo, MT 59824-0039

Ph: (406) 549-7626

E-mail: owl@montana.com

Howe, Frank, Nongame Avian Program

Coordinator

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

1594 W. North Temple, Suite 2110

P.O. Box 146301

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6301

Ph: (801) 538-4764

E-mail: fhowe@state.ut.us

Howery, Mark, Nat. Res. Biologist

Oklahoma Dept. of Wildlife Conservation

Wildlife Diversity Program

1801 North Lincoln Blvd.

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Ph: (405) 521-4619

E-mail: mhowery@odwc.state.ok.us

Hunt, W. Grainger

Predatory Bird Research Group

Marine Lab, University of California

Long Beach, CA 95064

Ph: (408) 459-2466

E-mail: grainger@cats.ucsc.edu

Appendix C 99
Hunter, Chuck

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 420

Atlanta, GA 30345

Ph: (404) 679-7130

E-mail: Chuck_Hunter@fws.gov

Hutchings, Scott, Prairie Partner Coord.

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory

13401 Piccadilly Road

Brighton, CO 80601

Ph: (303) 659-4348

E-mail: Scott.Hutchings@cbobirds.org

Ireland, Terry

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement

764 Horizon Drive, South Annex A

Grand Junction, CO 81506-3946

Ph: (970) 243-2778

Jacobson, Susan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 1306

Albuquerque, NM 87103

Phone: (505) 248-6655

E-mail: Susan_Jacobson@fws.gov

Jakubos, Bonnie

Bureau of Land Management

100 Oregon Street

Vale, OR 97918

Ph: (503) 473-3144

James, Paul

Saskatchewan Museum of Natural History

2340 Albert Street,Wascana Park

Regina, SK S4P 3V7

Canada

Ph: (306) 787-2798

E-mail: paul.james.erm@govmail.gov.sk.ca

Jaramillo, Alvaro

San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory

1290 Hope Street

P.O. Box 247

Alviso, CA 95002-0247

Ph: (408) 946-6548

E-mail: admin@sfbbo.org

Johnson, Douglas

USGS, Grasslands Ecosystem Initiative

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center

8711–37th Street, SE

Jamestown, ND 58401-7317

E-mail: Douglas_H_Johnson@usgs.gov

Kaltenecker, Greg, Director

Idaho Bird Observatory

Boise State University

Department of Biology

1910 University Drive

Boise, ID 83725-1515

Ph: (208) 426-3262

Knowles, Craig

Fauna West Wildlife Consultants

P.O. Box 113

Boulder, MT 59632

Ph: (406) 225-3221 or (406) 225-9118

E-mail: FaunaWest@aol.com

Kochert, Mike

USGS, Snake River Field Station

Forest/Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

970 Lusk Street

Boise, ID 83706

Ph: (208) 426-5201

E-mail: mkochert@eagle.boisestate.edu

Korfanta, Nicole

School of Environment and Natural Resources

University of Wyoming

Laramie, WY 82071-3971

Ph: (307) 766-2068

E-mail: korfanta@uwyo.edu

LeCaptain, Leonard

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ecological Services

6610 Washburn Way

Klamath Falls, OR 97603

Leupin, Ernest

Centre for Applied Conservation, U.B.C.

1405 Cariboo Hwy.

Williams Lake, BC V2G 2W3

Canada

Ph: (250) 392-2358

E-mail: leupin@direct.ca

Lewis, Steve A., Project Leader

Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office

6610 Washburn Way

Klamath Falls, OR 97603-9365

Ph: (541) 885-8481

Lewis, Steve J.

Nongame Migratory Bird Coordinator

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive

Ft. Snelling, MN 55111-4056

Ph: (612) 713-5473

E-mail: Steve_J_Lewis@fws.gov

Lorentzen, Ed

Bureau of Land Management

2800 Cottage Way

Sacramento, CA 95825-1886

Ph: (916) 978-4646

E-mail: Edward_Lorentzen@ca.blm.gov

Low, Dave

Ministry of Environment

British Columbia Government, Lands and Parks

1259 Dalhousie

Kamloops, BC V2C 5Z5

Canada

Ph: (250) 371-6243

E-mail: dlow@kamloops.env.gov.bc.ca

100 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Lutz, Scott, Assistant Professor

Department of Wildlife Ecology

University of Wisconsin, 226 Russell Labs

1630 Linden Drive

Madison, WI 53706-1598

Ph: (608) 263-8979

E-mail: rslute@facstaff.wisc.edu

Martell, Mark, Cons. Programs Coord.

The Raptor Center

College of Veterinary Medicine

St. Paul, MN 55108

Ph: (612) 624-9790

E-mail: marte006@tc.umn.edu

Marti, Carl, Raptor Research Center

Boise State University

Boise, ID 83725

Ph: (208) 426-6996

Martin, Catrina, Assistant Field Supervisor

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Coast

2493 Portola Road, Suite B

Ventura, CA 93003

Ph: (805) 644-1766

E-mail: Catrina_Martin@r1.fws.gov

Martin, Roy

California Dept. of Parks & Recreation

Resource Protection Division

P.O. Box 450

Sacramento, CA 94296

Ph: (916) 653-3591

Mazur, Kurt

Grassland and Forest Bird Project

Partners in Flight Manitoba

200 Saulteaux Cresent, Box 24

Winnipeg, MB R3J 3W3

Canada

Ph: (204) 945-6816

E-mail: kmazur@nr.gov.mb.ca

McCluskey, Cal, Sr. Wildlife Specialist

BLM, Fish, Wildlife and Forests Group

1387 S. Vinnell Way

Boise, ID 83709

Ph: (208) 373-4042

E-mail: cmcclusk@id.blm.gov

McKeever, Katherine

The Owl Foundation

4117 21st. Street

Vineland Station, ON L0R 2E0

Canada

Ph: (905) 562-5986

Mealey, Brian Keith

Miami Museum of Science

3280 South Miami Avenue

Miami, FL 33129

Ph: (305) 854-4247 ext. 256

E-mail: 6mealey@miamisci.org

Mehlman, David, Dir. of Cons. Programs

Wings of the Americas

322 Tyler Road NW

Albuquerque, NM 87107

Ph: (505) 344-1732

E-mail: dmehlman@tnc.org

Mele, Gary

4536 Alpine Road

Portola Valley, CA 94028

Melquist, Wayne

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

600 South Walnut, P.O. Box 25

Boise, ID 83707

Ph: (208) 334-2676

E-mail: Wmelquis@idfg.state.id.us

Mesta, Robert, Coordinator

USFWS, Sonoran Desert Joint Venture

12661 E. Broadway Blvd.

Tucson, AZ 85748

Ph: (520) 722-4289

E-mail: Robert_Mesta@fws.gov

Miller, Edwin J.

Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks

5089 Co. Road 2925

Independence, KS 67301

Miller, Jeff

Center for Biological Diversity

P.O. Box 40090

Berkley, CA 94704

Ph: (510) 841-0812

E-mail: jmiller@biologicaldiversity.org

Millsap, Brian

Division of Migratory Bird Management

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

4401 N. Fairfax Drive MS 634

Arlington, VA 22203

E-mail: Brian_Millsap@fws.gov

Moravek, Glen

Fort Pierre National Grassland

124 S. Euclid Avenue, Box 417

Pierre, SD 57501

E-mail: gmoravek/r2_nebraska@fs.fed.us

Murphy, Robert, Wildlife Biologist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge

8315 Highway 8

Kenmare, ND 58746-9046

Ph: (701) 848-2722

E-mail: Bob_Murphy@fws.gov

Neal, Larry

Nevada Division of Wildlife

1100 Valley Road

Reno, NV 89512-2817

Appendix C 101
Nevada Breeding Bird Atlas

Great Basin Bird Observatory

One East First Street, Suite 500

Reno, NV 89501

Ph: (775) 348-2644

E-mail: gbbo@altavista.com

Nugent, Martin

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Wildlife Diversity Program

2501 SW First Avenue, P.O. Box 59

Portland, OR 97207

Ph: (503) 872-5260 x5346

E-mail: Martin.Nugent@state.or.us

Oakleaf, Bob, Nongame Coordinator

Wyoming Game and Fish Department

260 Buena Vista

Lander, WY 82520

Ph: (307) 332-2688

E-mail: roakle@missc.state.wy.us

Oliphant, Lynn

Department of Vet. Anatomy

University of Saskatchewan

Saskatoon, SK S7N 0W0

Canada

Olson, Mike

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services

3425 Miriam Avenue

Bismarck, ND 58501-7926

Ph: (701) 250-4481

E-mail: Michael_Olson@fws.gov

Ortega-Rubio, Alfredo

Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas, Div. Biol. Terr.

APDO Postal 128

La Paz, B.C.S. 23000

Mexico

Palermo, Kerrie, State Office Biologist

Bureau of Land Management

P.O. Box 2965

Portland, OR 97208

Ph: (503) 952-6382

E-mail: OSO_Wildlife_Biologist_Mail@or.blm.gov

Parrish, Jim, Coordinator

Utah Partners in Flight Program

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

1594 West North Temple, Suite 2222

Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Ph: (801) 538-4788

E-mail: Nrdwr.jparrish@state.ut.us

Pence, Diane

US Fish and Wildlife Service

300 Westgate Center Drive

Hadley, MA 01035

Ph: (413) 253-8577

E-mail: Diane_Pence@fws.gov

Peregrine Fund

566 W Flying Hawk Lane

Boise, ID 83709

Ph: (208) 362-3716

Pezzolesi, Linda

Department of Biological Sciences

Binghamton University

P.O. Box 6000

Binghamton, NY 13902-6000

Ph: (607) 777-2438

Plumpton, David, Wildlife Biologist

H.T. Harvey & Associates

3150 Almaden Expressway, Suite 145

San Jose, CA 95118

Ph: (408) 448-9450 ext. 204

E-mail: dplumpton@harveyecology.com

Poulin, Ray G.

Department of Biology

University of Regina

Regina, SK S4S 0A2

Canada

Ph: (306) 585-4562

E-mail: poulinr@uregina.ca

Priestley, Lisa

Bird Studies Canada

Environment Canada

Room 200

4999-98 Avenue

Edmonton, Alberta, T6B 2X3 Canada

Quinlan, Richard

Regional Biologist

Species at Risk Program

Alberta Fish and Wildlife

2nd Flr, YPM Place 530 – 8 St. S.

Lethbridge, Alberta, T1J 2J8

Ph: (403) 381-5397

E-mail: Richard.Quinlan@gov.ab.ca

Rangel-Salazar, Jose-Luis

Museo de Zoologica Iztacala

ENEP UNAM IZTACALA

Apartado Postal 314

Tlalnepantla, 54090

Mexico

E-mail: Penrique@yahoo.com

Ratcliff, Brian

307 Dog Lake Road, RR #12, Site 15-22

Thunderbay, ON P7B 5E3

Canada

Ph: (807) 768-8408

E-mail: brat@nomin.norlink.net

Ratti, John

Department of Wildlife Resources

University of Idaho

Moscow, ID 83844-1136

Ph: (208) 885-7741

102 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Rau, Larry

Bureau of Land Management

111 Garryowen Road

Miles City, MT 59301

E-mail: Larry_Rau@blm.gov

Reinking, Dan, Atlas Coordinator

Sutton Avian Research Center

P.O. Box 2007

Bartlesville, OK 74005-2007

Ph: (918) 336-7778

E-mail: www.suttoncenter.org

Restani, Marco

Ecosystem Science & Conservation Div.

University of Washington

College of Forest Resources, Box 352100

Seattle, WA 98195-2100

Ph: (206) 543-2764

E-mail: restani@u.washington.edu

Rodrigues-Estrella, Ricardo

Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas

Div. Biol. Terr.,

Apartado Postal 128

La Paz, B.C.S. 23000

Mexico

Ronan, Noelle

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

104 Nash Hall

Oregon State University

Corvallis, OR 97331

Roscoe, Terry, Wildlife Biologist

1701 Nimbus Road

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-4599

Phone: (916) 358-2876

E-mail: troscoe@dfg.ca.gov

Rosenberg, Daniel

Department of Forest, Range, and Wildlife Sciences

Utah State University

5230 Old Main Hill

Logan, UT 84322-5230

Phone: (435) 797-3219

E-mail: dan.rosenburg@usu.edu

Ruckeles, Ann

Colorado Natural Heritage

850 37th Street

Boulder, CO 80303

Sallabanks, Rex

Idaho Department of Fish & Game

600 S. Walnut

Boise, ID 83707

Sample, David

Wisconsin DNR

1350 Femrite Drive

Monona, WI 53716

Saslaw, Larry, Wildlife Mgmt. Biologist

Bureau of Land Management

3801 Pegasus Drive

Bakersfield, CA 93308

Ph: (661) 391-6000

E-mail: Lawrence_Saslaw@ca.blm.gov

Schlafmann, Deb

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605

Sacramento, CA 95825

Ph: (916) 414-6600

E-mail: Debra_Schlafmann@fws.gov

Scobie, Dave, Principle

Avocet Environmental Inc.

P.O. Box 1644

Brooks, AB T1R 1C5

Canada

Ph: (403) 793-8500

E-mail: avocet@eidnet.org

Sebesta, Dawn

HawkWatch International

2466 Meadows Drive

Park City, UT 84060-7032

Ph: (435) 649-3024

E-mail: stoney@pcfastnet.com

Shackelford, Clifford, Nongame Ornithologist

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

3000 IH 35 South, Suite 100

Austin, TX 78704

Ph: (512) 912-7045

E-mail: clifford.shackelford@tpwd.state.tx.us

Shackford, John

429 Oak Cliff Drive

Edmond, OK 73034-8262

Ph: (405) 340-5057

E-mail: johnsshack@aol.com

Sherrod, Steve

Sutton Avian Research Center

P.O. Box 2007

Bartlesville, OK 74005

Ph: (918) 336-7778

E-mail: gmsarc@aol.com

Shyry, Darcey

11524 44th Ave.

Edmonton, AB T6J 0Z5

Canada

Ph: (780) 435-2335

E-mail: darceyshyry@hotmail.com

Sidle, John, TES Coordinator

Great Plains National Grasslands

USDA–Forest Service

125 North Main Street

Chadron, NE 69337

Ph: (308) 432-0300

E-mail: jsidle@fs.fed.us

Appendix C 103
Silcock, Ross

P.O. Box 57

Tabor, IA 51653

E-mail:silcock@rosssilcock.com

Skeel, Margaret, Program Coordinator

Nature Saskatchewan

1860 Lorne St., Room 206

Regina, SK S4P 2L7

Canada

Ph: (306) 780-9273

E-mail: nature.sask@unibase.com

Skiba, Gary

Colorado Division of Wildlife

6060 Broadway

Denver, CO 80216

Ph: (303) 291-7466

E-mail: Gary.skiba@state.co.us

Skoruppa, Mary Kay, Biologist

USGS, Biological Resource Division

6300 Ocean Drive

TAMU-CC Box 339

Corpus Christi, TX 78412

Ph: (361) 985-6266

E-mail: Mary_Kay_Skoruppa@usgs.gov

Snake River Basin Office

1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368

Boise, ID 83709

Ph: (208) 378-5243

Steenhof, Karen, Res. Wildlife Biologist

USGS, Snake River Field Station

970 Lusk Street

Boise, ID 83706

Ph: (208) 426-5206 or (208) 331-5206

E-mail: ksteenho@eagle.boisestate.edu

Stepnisky, Dave

Renewable Resources, University of Alberta

18516-84 Avenue

Edmonton, AB T5T 1G5

Canada

E-mail: dstepnisky@excite.com

Svingen, Dan Grassland Biologist

U.S. Forest Service

240 W. Century Avenue

Bismarck, ND 58501

Ph: (701) 50 4463 ext. 107

E-mail: dsvingen@fs.fed.us

Thompson, Bruce

Coop. Fish & Wildlife Research Unit

New Mexico State University

P.O. Box 30003, Department 4901

Las Cruces, NM 88003

Ph: (505) 646-6093

E-mail: Bthompso@nmsu.edu

Trapp, John

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Office of Migratory Bird Management

4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 634

Arlington, VA 22203

Ph: (703) 358-1821

E-mail: John_Trapp@fws.gov

Trefry, Helen

P.O. Box 176, Site 1, R.R. #2

Tofield, AB T0B 4J0

Canada

Ph: (780) 951-8693

E-mail: helen.trefry@ec.gc.ca

Turner, Annette

Hawk Mountain Sanctuary

1700 Hawk Mountain Road

Kempton, PA 19529

Uhmann, Tanys

Natural Resources Institute

University of Manitoba

70 Dysart Road

Winnipeg, MB 3T 2N2

Canada

Ph: (204) 269-2184

E-mail: umuhmann@cc.umanitoba.ca

Van de Hoek, Robert

Bureau of Land Management

4301 Rosedale Highway

Bakersfield, CA 93308

VerCauteren, Tammy

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory

13401 Piccadilly Road

Brighton, CO 80601

Ph: (303) 659-4348

E-mail: Tammy.vercauteren@rmbo.org

Vermillion, Bill

Louisiana Natural Heritage Program

Department of Wildlife & Fisheries

P.O. Box 98000

Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9000

Ph: (225) 765-2976

E-mail: Vermillion_wg@wlf.state.la.us

Wallace, George

American Bird Conservancy

P.O. Box 249

4249 Loudoun Avenue

The Plains, VA 20198

Ph: (540) 253-5780

E-mail: gwallace@abcbirds.org

Waller, David, Wildlife Biologist

Bureau of Land Management

Glasgow Field Station, Route #1-4775

Glasgow, MT 59230-9796

Phone: (406) 228-3762

E-mail: david_waller@blm.gov.

104 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States
Walton, Brian, Coordinator

Predatory Bird Research Group

Long Marine Lab, University of California

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Ph: (831) 459-2466

E-mail: Walton@cats.ucsc.edu

Warnock, Robert, Research Scientist

Nature Saskatchewan

4107 McPhail Avenue

Regina, SK S4S 1G1

Canada

Ph: (306) 586-2492

E-mail: warnock@accesscomm.ca

Wedgwood, Jim

610 Leslie Avenue

Saskatoon, SK 57H 222

Canada

Weir, Colin

P.O. Box 1150

Coaldale, AB T1M 1M9

Canada

Ph: (403) 345-4262

E-mail: Cweir@telusplanet.net

Wellicome, Troy

Environment Canada

Canadian Wildlife Service

4999-98 Avenue, Room 200

Edmonton, AB T6B 2X3

Canada

Ph: (780) 951-8671

E-mail: Troy.wellicome@ec.gc.ca

Williams, Bob, State Supervisor

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234

Reno, NV 89502-7147

Ph: (775) 861-6331

E-mail: Bob_D_Williams@r1.fws.gov

Williams, Sandy

New Mexico Game and Fish Department

Nongame Wildlife Program

Villagra Building, P.O. Box 25112

Santa Fe, NM 87504

Ph: (505) 827-7911

E-mail: SOWilliams@state.nm.us

Wise, Cathryn, Nongame Birds Biologist

Arizona Game and Fish Department

2221 W. Greenway Rd.

Phoenix, AZ 85023

Ph: (602) 789-3577

E-mail: cwise@gf.state.az.us

Wohl, Kent

Nongame Migratory Bird Coordinator

US Fish and Wildlife Service

1101 East Tudor Road

Anchorage, AL 99503

Ph: (907) 786-3503

E-mail: Kent_Wohl@fws.gov

Woodin, Marc, Wildlife Biologist

6300 Ocean Drive, TAMU-CC Box 339

Corpus Cristi, TX 78412

Ph: (361) 985-6266

E-mail: marc_woodin@usgs.gov

Yamamoto, Julie

California Environmental Protection Agency

OEHHA, 301 Capitol Mall, Room 205

Sacramento, CA 95814

Ph: (916) 323-9538

E-mail: Jyamamot@oehha.ca.gov

Zohrer, Jim

Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources

Wallace State Office Bldg.

Des Moines, IA 50319

Appendix C 105
106 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

Section Heading

Section Subheading

Table D-1: Scientific and common names of animals mentioned in the “Status Assessment and Conservation

Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States”.

Scientific Name Common Name

Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s Hawk

Athene cunicularia floridana Florida Burrowing Owl

Athene cunicularia hypugaea Western Burrowing Owl

Bubo virginianus Great-horned Owl

Buteo jaimaicensis Red-tailed Hawk

Buteo regalis Ferruginous Hawk

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s Hawk

Canis familiaris Domestic dog

Canis latrans Coyote

Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier

Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow

Cynomys ludovicianus Black-tailed prairie dog

Cynomys gunnisoni Gunnison’s prairie dog

Cynomys leucurus White-tailed prairie dog

Dasypus novemcinctus Nine-banded armadillo

Dipodomys ordii Ord kangaroo rat

Dipodomys spectabilis Banner-tailed kangaroo rat

Dipodomys spp. Kangaroo rat

Eremophila alpestris Horned Lark

Falco columbarius Merlin

Falco mexicanus Prairie Falcon

Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon

Falco sparverius American Kestrel

Felis catus Domestic cat

Gopherus agassizii Desert tortoise

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle

Lynx rufus Bobcat

Marmota flaviventris Yellow-bellied marmot

Marmota monax Woodchuck

Mephitis spp. Skunk

Microtus californicus Meadow vole

Microtus montanus Montane vole

Appendix D: Scientific and Common Names of

Animals and Plants Mentioned in the Burrowing

Owl Status Assessment and Conservation Plan
Table D-1: Continued

Scientific Name Common Name

Mustela nigripes Black-footed ferret

Mustela spp. Weasel

Peromyscus leucopus White-footed mouse

Peromyscus maniculatus Deer mouse

Reithrodontomys megalotis Western harvest mouse

Solenopsis wagneri Fire ant

Spermophilus columbianus Columbian ground squirrel

Spermophilus douglasii Douglas’s ground squirrel

Spermophilus richardsonii Richardson’s ground squirrel

Spermophilus spilosoma Spotted ground squirrel

Spermophilus tereticaudus Round-tailed ground squirrel

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus Thirteen-lined ground squirrel

Spermophilus variegatus Rock squirrel

Taxidea taxus Badger

Thomomys spp. Pocket gophers

Tyto alba Barn Owl

Vulpes spp., Urocyon cineroargenteus Foxes

Appendix D 107
Table D-2: Scientific and common names of plants mentioned in the “Status Assessment and Conservation

Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States”.

Scientific Name Common Name

Agropyron spicatum Bluebunch wheatgrass

Artemisia tridentata Big sagebrush

Atriplex polycarpa Saltbush

Bouteloua gracilis Blue grama

Bromus tectorum Downy brome, Cheatgrass

Buchloe dactyloides Buffalograss

Chrysothamnus nauseosus Rabbit brush

Gutierrezia sarothrae Snakeweed

Halogeton glomeratus Halogeton

Larrea divaricata Creosote bush

Oryzopsis contracta Indian ricegrass

Pinus edulis Pinyon pine

Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa pine

Poa sandbergii Sandberg bluegrass

Prosopis spp. Mesquite

Purshia tridentata Antelope bitterbrush

Sarcobatus vermiculatus Greasewood

Salsola tragus Russian thistle

Stipa comata Needle and thread

Tamarix ramosissima Tamarisk

108 Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Route 1, Box 166

Sheperdstown, WV 25443

http://www.fws.gov

June 2003